re 
ra) 
ant 
© 
ort 
G4 
ord 
$4 
© 
re) 
YQ 
cD) 
S 
oe 


Christ in 


Offerings 





eS 


Petit 


2, 
oF ae 


Pte 


Sas 
Ys h ee 
aii ; 


AS 
ae fy 


GaN 


§ 
sa Moe 
; De nf 


ue 
salt 
- My " 








. 4 A 
' ay t t t 
F ‘ i) ' f 
; 4 x 7 : 
; 4 
ee Oe , f he 
. ‘ i 
at ‘a; - 4 . , 
H ~ 4 Ps , «! 
7 yt i 
He, A y i 
j i : : 
Foe + . : 
5 , nb ‘ i 
2 6 d 
Bi : ; 








fle 


me 
is 
&? 
i ae.t ‘ ton 4 ‘ aA : 
ye Hy f Aer x 
} ‘ y " : eae 
ee 4 


y 


a 





i 5 ‘ : ; ix 
i é 





i 
= i 
4, , 
» 4 > 
si he 
7) Pie ’, 
% 
i x - 
‘ 4 4 
: 
‘ j 
tat } 
a i: 
2, ‘3 
py ‘ I ts 
ot bs 
ic : 
4b - 
7 ‘fr 
: ¥ Dy 
Fj 4 ye 1 f 
¢ ye 
F \ 




















; : 7 
kee ee. b ; ty 


JAMES 


be ’ 


M. GRAY, B. D. » 





Christ in the Sacrific 


ee | 


t 
) 
yet - 
, : 
i, . 
a : 
VW 





ial 


En 





' 


Christ in the Sacrificial a eas 
Offerings 


Bible Studies in Leviticus 


BY 
JAMES M. ‘GRAY, D. D. 


Minister in the Reformed Episcopal Church; President of the Moody Bible Institute 
of Chicago; Consulting Editor of the Scofield Reference Bible and the Tercentenary 
(1911) Edition of the King James Version; Author of Christian Workers’ 
Commentary, Great Epochs of Sacred History, How to Master the English 
Bible, Primers of the Faith, Synthetic Bible Studies, etc. 


CHICAGO 
THE BIBLE INSTITUTE COLPORTAGE ASSOCIATION 
826 North La Saile Street 





J 


Copyright, 1924, 
By 
The Bible Institute Colportage Association 
of Chicago 


PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 


~~ 


+ 
a 
% 


Christ in the Sacrificial Offerings 


Bible Studies in Leviticus 


PREFATORY NOTE 


follow the method and be guided 
mainly by the treatment. of the 
subject in The Book of Leviticus, 
Berkey, o. tt. Kelloge,; DD, LLY Di, 
one time professor of theology in the 
Presbyterian Seminary, Allegheny, Pa., 
missionary to India, and author of The 
Jews, or, Prediction and Fulfilment; The 
Light of Asia and the Light of the World; 
Handbook of Comparative Religion, etc. 
Of course, there are many other com- 
mentaries on the book of Leviticus as 
well as books ably treating of different 
portions of it. We mention a few in the 
event of readers desiring to go further 
into its study as it is hoped may be the 
case. Some of the following are out of 
print and some are English publications 
which may be a little difficult to obtain, 
but any of them may be occasionally 
picked up in a second-hand book store, 
and are well worth having in any pastor’s 
library and for home reading: 


ik THESE studies it is intended to 


- it may yet be reprinted again. 


The Typology of Scripture, by Patrick 
Fairbairn, 2 volumes; Holy Types, by 
Joseph A. Seiss; The Study of the Types, 
by Ada R. Habershon; The Law of the 
Offerings, by Andrew Jukes; Studies in 
the Mosaic Institutions, by W. G. Moore- 
head; Studies in Leviticus, by Herbert 
Brooke, and Thoughts on Leviticus, by 
B. W. Newton. 

More than any of the above however, 
Kellogg is to be preferred for the 
thoroughness and saneness of his treat- 
ment of the difficult and mysterious 
themes, and the order and simplicity of 
his style. That his volume should be out 
of print, originally part of the Expositor’s 
Bible (Armstrong), is a great disappoint- 
ment, but the hope is entertained that 
Mean- 
while these studies, limited and inade- 
quate as they are, may serve to keep the 
name of the book alive as well as stimulate 
a deeper interest in the portion of revela- 
tion with which it deals. 


LESSON 1 


Introductory 
To some persons it is quite impossible 
to understand the book of Leviticus, and 
to not a few it seems to have no living 


relation to present day 
1. questions of Christian be- 
Origin and lief and practice; for which 
Authority reasons it is difficult for 


them to believe in its 

divine authority and much less in its 
divine inspiration, 

Nevertheless, the opening words of the 

beok clearly affirm its authority by speak- 


Bos) 


ing of its Mosaic origin and the fact 
that it came to Moses as a revelation 
from God. ‘And the Lord called unto 
Moses, and spake unto him out of the 
tabernacle of the congregation, saying 
* * *)’ Furthermore, these same 
words or their equivalent occur some 
fifty-four times in the twenty-seven 
chapters of the book. Therefore, when 
they and their immediate context are 
eliminated from the book, scarcely any- 
thing is left. 

It is to be noted further, that our 


4 INTRODUCTORY 


Lord Jesus Christ endorsed this affirma- 
tion in the book by endorsing the whole 
Pentateuch, of which the book is a part. 
See for examples, Matthew 5:18; Luke 
24:44 and John 5:46, 47. In these 
passages, he speaks of ‘“‘the law’’ and 
“the law of Moses’’ by which his con- 
temporaries understood him to mean the 
Pentateuch, or the first five books of the 
Bible. 


But not only did our Lord endorse the 
Pentateuch in general, but the book of 
Leviticus in particular. In Matthew 
8:4 and John 7:22, as well as in other 
places, he quotes certain revealed laws 
which are found only in Leviticus. 


Of course it is easy to say, as the 
destructive critics do say, that Jesus was 
only a man like his contemporaries, 
and knew no better than they; that 
Moses was not the author of the Penta- 
teuch, and that it was not inspired. Or, 
if this be seriously objected to, they 
would say that while Jesus knew better, 
yet He accommodated Himself to the 
limitations of His hearers and did not 
think it necessary to correct their ignor- 
ance on that point. 

The best answer we can make to the 
above, however, is to point to the New 
Testament, and especially the four 
Gospels, which reveal the person of 
Christ to us. The person there revealed 
was not a man like His contemporaries, 
but the God-man who knew whereof 
He spake, and whose word is accepted 
at least by the author of these studies, 
as absolute authority. 

To refer once more to the opening 
words of the book, ‘‘And the Lord said,’’ 
they very closely connect it historically 

with the preceding book, 
Le, Exodus, just as that book 
Occasion and is connected with Gene- 
Content sis. 
Quoting Brooke here, 
“This intimate relation between the 
opening books of the Bible serves not 
only to tell us that they are given in 
proper order for an intelligent grasp of 
their history and meaning, but suggests 
also that their spiritual use and purpose 
must be apprehended in the same order. 


They are the a bc of religious knowl- 
edge.” 

Genesis shows man’s ruin by sin, and 
makes it plain that in every condition 
of trial he only comes out a failure— 
in Eden, before the flood, after the flood, 
and in the chosen family of Abraham, 
still man fails. 


The chosen family of Abraham are 
found, in the last chapter of Genesis, in 
the land of Egypt, the emblem of a world 
that knows not God. Exodus takes up 
their story there and proceeds to reveal 
how God redeems and delivers them out 
of their hopeless bondage, separating 
them unto Himself, and appropriating 
them as His people. Its closing chapter 
signifies the accomplishment of the first 
stage of this redemption, and shows 
God dwelling among them and manifest- 
ing His presence in the tabernacle, or 
‘“‘the tent of meeting.”’ 

Now comes Leviticus, which is entirely 
occupied with the condition of those who 
are thus redeemed, delivered, brought 
nigh, and possessed by God. 

The book may be sub-divided into 
several sections, but Brooke limits them 
to four. 

The first section comprises the first 
seven chapters and is marked by the 


repetition of the words ‘‘sacrifice,’’ 
“‘offering,’’ and ‘“‘oblation.’’ In other 
words, we have in this section what 


some identify as ‘‘the law of the offer- 
ings.” 

The next section comprises chapters 
8 to 10, and is occupied with the con- 
secration of Aaron and his sons. 

The third section covers chapters 11 
to 16, and is distinguished by the words 
‘“‘clean’’ and ‘‘unclean’’ and their com- 
pounds—the keynote to which is, there- 
fore, purity. 

The fourth section covers chapters 17 to 
25, with an appendix of two closing chap- 
ters. This is marked by the words “‘holy”’ 
and “sanctify,’’ which, with their com- 
pounds, give the subject of holiness as 
the keynote to this portion of the book. 

The appendix is a supplementary 
revelation on voluntary vows and dues, 
and also speaks of the blessing or cursing 


INTRODUCTORY 5 


which will fall upon the people, as they 
obey or disobey what Jehovah has thus 
revealed to them as His will. 


In general terms the purpose of 
Leviticus is to give directions to the 
people of Israel how to live as a holy 

nation in fellowship with 
Bs God—the keynote of the 
Purpose of whole being ‘‘HOLI- 
the Book NESS TO JEHOVAH.” 

But in particular, the book 
furnishes to the theocracy (for that is 
what Israel is meant to be—a govern- 
ment under the immediate sovereignty 
of God), a code of laws to secure their 
physical, moral and spiritual welfare. 
And yet, all this is merely a means to an 
end, the end being to make Israel a 
blessing to all the nations of the earth, 
mediating to them the redemption of 
God through Christ Jesus His Son. 


To accomplish this blessing for the 
nations, certain things were necessary 
in the history of Israel. 


(1) It was necessary to keep Israel 
separate from the heathen nations round 
about, and as a matter of fact, even the 
imperfect obedience to these laws which 
Israel has rendered, has made that nation 
unique among all the other nations to 
this day. 

(2) It was necessary to reveal in and 
to Israel the real character of God, par- 
ticularly His unapproachable holiness. 


(3) This revelation of God’s holiness 
was made in the first place by means of 
the system of sacrifices, the outstanding 
lesson of which was that ‘‘without shed- 
ding of blood is no remission.’’ It was 
made also, by means of the precepts of the 
law and the severity of its penalties. 


(4) But the sacrificial system and the 
law were not only to reveal God’s holi- 
ness, but also His mercy, because in the 
shedding of blood there is found to be 
remission for all who will accept the 
offer. 

(5) The sacrificial system and the 
law were adapted to reveal God in His 
holiness and mercy, and equally adapted 
to train Israel for her mission by sug- 
gesting to every thoughtful! Israelite 


that there must be a secret of redeeming 
mercy yet to be revealed. 


In other words, the sacrificial system 
and the law were so ordered as to be 
directly typical and prophetic of our 
Lord Jesus Christ and His great redemp- 
tion. Cf. Luke 24:27; John 5:46; He- 
brews 8:5; 9:23, 26. 


In the study of this book, it is import- 
ant to keep in mind, 

(1) That as a revelation of the char- 

acter of God, it is of as 
4, much use to us as it was 
Present Day to Israel. The present 
Use writer can testify that 

he obtained his first true 
knowledge of God from the Old Testa- 
ment rather than the New, and that 
Leviticus was a factor init. In one sense, 
he knew Jehovah before he knew Jesus, 
and he well remembers the day and the 
place when it first dawned upon his deeper 
consciousness that the two were one. 

(2) But this book reveals to us not 
only the character of God, but the funda- 
mental condition of pure and undefiled 
religion, namely, that there is for sinful 
man no citizenship in the kingdom of 
God apart from a high priest and a 
propitiatory sacrifice. 

(3) Inasmuch as the book is a body 
of civil law for the theocracy, it suggests 
principles for the guidance of all human 
legislators today,—their guidance as to 
the relation of civil government to re- 
ligion, the rights of labor and capital, 
land holding and taxes, marriage and 
divorce, the social evil, and the punish- 
ment of murder and other crimes. Dr. 
Kellogg makes this very clear, and his 
commentary would be a valuable text- 
book in college classes on civil govern- 
ment. 

(4) It reveals Christ in type as the 
sinner’s Saviour, and the One who exalts 
him to future dignity as a redeemed man. 

(5) It reveals things yet to come in 
the Messiah’s kingdom as foreshadowed 
in the feasts of Pentecost, the Trumpets, 
the Day of Atonement, and the Jubilee 
and Sabbatic years. All of these will 
be realized for corporate Israel in the 
fullest sense in the millennial age, and 


6 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


‘through Israel all the earth will thus be 


blessed. 

This present series of studies does not 
contemplate anything beyond the sac- 
rificial offerings, but if, in God’s provi- 


- dence, we should go further, there would 


be “things new and old’’ to be brought 
out of the sacred text down to the very 
end. 
Review Questions 

1. What evidence of its divine author- 
ity does the book of Leviticus contain? 

2. How does the New Testament con- 
firm that evidence? 


3. Show the distinctions among the 
first three books of the Pentateuch from 
the spiritual point of view. 

4. Divide Leviticus into four parts. 

5. For what two purposes was Leviti- 
cus revealed, so far as Israel is concerned? 

6. What was the end in view? 

7. What five things were necessary to 
accomplish this end? 

8. How many of the New Testament 


references in this lesson have you exam- 


ined and compared? 
9. What are the five present day uses 
of this book? 


LESSON Ii 


The Burnt-Offering 
Leviticus 1:1-17;6:8-13 


E SHOULD not attempt to 

interpret the Levitical offer- 

ings by our own fancy as to 

what they may symbolize or 
by our thought as to what the Israelites 
might have considered them to mean. 
Our guide must be the Scriptures of the 
Old and New Testaments so far as they 
interpret them. 


For example, Leviticus 21:6 tells us 
that the offerings are the “‘bread”’ of God, 
not material bread of course, as we may 

learn from Psalm 50:8- 
1. How to 15, but representing 
Interpret what that Psalm speaks 
the Offerings of, namely, thanksgiv- 

ing, fidelity, confiding 
trust and praise. This is the bread, or 
food, that the obedient Israelite offered to 
Jehovah in the sacrificial offerings. He 
acknowledged, in other words, that these 
things were God’s due from him, and that 
he, because of sin, had never rendered 
them unto God. Therefore, because he 
had not rendered them, his life was for- 
feited, and he was now by faith presenting 
unto God the innocent life of another asa 
substitute for his own guilty one. 


Of course, it is inconceivable that the 


life of an animal could in itself be a suffi- 
cient and proper substitute for human 
guilt, hence the victim must have sym- 
bolized a greater substitute, and as we 
shall see from other scriptures, that 
substitute was our Lord Jesus Christ. 
He is the only bread that can satisfy 
God, and in Him alone is God wel! pleased 
(Isa vari acMattes - isp: 

In further proof that the offerings were 
substitutionary in character, compare Le- 
viticus 17:10-14, which teaches that the 
life of the soul is in the blood, and that it 
is poured out upon the altar to make 
atonement. In the Revised Version the 
last clause of verse 11 reads: ‘‘For it is 
the blood that maketh atonement by 
reason of the life,’’—that is, the life that 
is yielded up makes atonement for the 
one who offers it. For the application to 
Christ in the premises, see Matthew 
26:28; John 1:29; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Peter 
L:f8, 19 Satoh hele 

It is essential, therefore, to the right 


interpretation of the offerings, that each. 


of them is seen as typilying our Saviour 
in some aspect of His work. What these 
aspects are, we shall learn later. 

“And the Lorp called unto Moses, 
and spake unto him out of the tabernacle 


ay 


THE BURNT-OFFERING 7 


~ 
of the congregation, saying, Speak 
unto the children of 


2. Nature and Israel, and say unto 
Characteristic them, If any man of 
of the Burnt- you bring an offering 
Offering unto the Lorp, ye shall 


bring your offering of 
the cattle, even of the herd and of the 
flock. If his offering bea burnt sacrifice 
of the herd, let him offer a male with- 
out blemish; he shall offer it of his own 
voluntary will at the door of the 
tabernacle of the congregation before 

the Lorp ’’(Lev. 1:1-3). 

(1) Note the place from which Jehovah 
now speaks, namely, the Tabernacle or 
the ‘‘tent of meeting’’ (R. V.). It is not 
Sinai, because there the law was given, 
and there Israel had entered into coven- 
ant with Him, which covenant Moses, 
their mediator, had sealed with the 
sprinkling of the blood on the book and 
the people (Exod. 24:7,8; Heb. 9:19-21). 
There they had taken Jehovah for their 
God and He had taken them for His 
people. Therefore, He had now appoint- 
ed this tent of meeting where He might 
dwell among and manifest His will to 
them as His people. 

Quoting B. W. Newton here: 

“The redeemed people of God only 
know God in the Tabernacle and none 
except those who belong to that Taber- 
nacle or what it represented on earth, 
can belong to God in heaven; that is, 
only those who have by faith sprinkled 
the blood of and have fed on the Passover 
lamb. Egypt is the type of the position 
of all others. How important to remem- 
ber this today when so many efforts are 
being made to destroy the distinctions 
which redemption has constituted and to 
speak of man’s natural condition as hav- 
ing in it the elements of a right relation- 
ship of God. Men wish to sweep from 
the earth the Tabernacle and its lessons 
and to sanctify Egypt in the name of 
God!”’ (Thoughts on Leviticus, page 28.) 

(2) Note that the carnivora are ex- 
cluded from this offering, doubtless be- 
cause animals which live by the death of 
others could not typify Him who came to 
give life. And only domestic animals are 
permitted, doubtless, because of the sub- 
mission and obedience they represented 
in comparison with other animals taken 


captive in the chase (Isa. 53:7; John 
10:17, 18). Also, as Kellogg and others 
think, because domestic animals were 
endeared to their owners by the cost of 
labor and care. 

(3) Note that the word translated 
“burnt offerings’’ means ‘‘that which 
ascends,’’ and is thus designated because 
it was wholly lifted up upon the altar, 


or because it was wholly burned on the ~~ 


altar and thence ascended in sweet 
smelling fragrance before Jehovah. To 
Him it was altogether devoted, no part 
of it was reserved except the skin. In 
other words, not only does God receive 
it all because He is well pleased with it 
all, but also absolutely nothing is reserved 
for the one who offers it 
to God 

(4) Note that the victim was to be a 
male, the strongest and best of its kind, 
and also without blemish, for only such 
could be a true type of the holy victim, 
Jesus Christ (Mal. 1:6, 13; Heb. 9:14). 

(5) Note that the Israelite himself and 
not the priest, offers or presents the vic- 
tim, and he does it ‘‘that he may be ac- 
cepted before the Lord’’ (R. V.). The 
teaching here is that each one of us must 
take the Lord Jesus Christ for himself, 
and present Him by faith unto Jehovah 
as his own offering for his own accep- 
tance. It is not enough for us to praise 
Christ or to seek to imitate Christ in 
order to be saved or to please God, but 
we must offer Him to God by faith as the 
substitute for our forfeited life on account 
of sin. 

(6) Note that “at the door of the 
tabernacle’’ the substitute must be 
offered. In other words, publicity is 
demanded (Rom. 10:9, 10). And then 
again, idolatry must be guarded against, 
as in the worship of false gods in the 
groves and on the hills after the manner 
of the heathen. The teaching for us is 
that there must be no self-will in our 
worship, but that the Christ whom we 
confess and present to God as our sub- 
stitute, must be the One whom God has 
revealed to us in the Gospels as His only 
begotten Son. 

‘‘And he shall put his hand upon the 


His all belongs 


8 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


head of the burnt-offering; and it shall 
be accepted for him to make atonement 
for him. And he shall kill 
3. Killing the bullock before the 
the Victim Lorp: and the priests, 
Aaron’s sons, shall bring 
the blood, and sprinkle the blood round 
about upon the altar that is by the 
door of the tabernacle of the congrega- 
tion. 
‘‘And he shall flay the burnt-offering, 
and cut it into his pieces’’ (Lev. 1:4-6)° 
(1) Note that the offerer lays his hand 
on the head of the offering, signifying his 
identification’ with it and his trans- 
ference to it of that which he himself 
deserved. Compare the instance of the 
scape-goat (Lev. 16:21), and also the 
substitution of the Levites in the place of 
the first-born of Israel (Num. 8:10,11). 

(2) Note the phrase ‘‘to make atone- 
ment for him.’’ The Hebrew word means 
‘“‘to cover,” and is first used when Noah 
is commanded to cover the ark with pitch 
(Gen. 6:14). Indeed the Hebrew for 
‘“‘pitch’”’ is derived from this verb, be- 
cause pitch covers that over which it is 
spread, and not only conceals but pro- 
tects it. By the atonement, the offerer’s 
sins were covered, hidden from God’s 
sight, and he himself was protected from 
their consequences (cf. Ps. 32:1; Isa. 61: 
10). Newton from whom the above is 
taken, also calls attention to the Hebrew 
of the word ‘‘accepted,’’ where the 
thought is not merely of the offerings 
being received, but received as grateful 
and excellent in the sight of Jehovah 
(cf. Ps. 149:4; Isa. 42:1; 1 Pet. 2:7, R. V.) 
~ (3) Note that the offerer himself 
kills the victim; in other words, every 
sinner must regard himself as having 
caused the Saviour’s death. 


‘‘My sins were laid on Thee, 
Thou stoodest in the sinner’s stead, 
Didst bear all ills for me.” 


And he kills the victim “before the 
Lorp,’”’ as if to say, ‘Against thee, 
thee only have I sinned and done this 
evil in thy sight’’ (Ps. 51:4). 

(4) Note that the priests and not the 
offerer ‘‘present and sprinkle the blood.”’ 
As Kellogg says, we who have offered 
Christ as our substitute, must leave Him 


to present the offering before God (Heb. 
Zeh7 i t7sZ5y) 

(5) Note however, that the flaying and 
cutting was done by the offerer and not 
the priest. Why? Kellogg passes over 
this lightly, but Newton thinks, and one’s 
heart agrees with him, that the offerer 
needed to possess a minute appreciation of 
the excellency of his offering in itself.’ 
So do we need to learn Christ. See also 
the comment on Verse 8. 

‘‘And the sons of Aaron the priest shall 
put fire upon the altar, and lay the wood 
in order upon the fire: and the priests, 

Aaron’s sons, shall lay the 


4. The parts, the head, and the fat, 
Burning in order upon the wood that 
is on the fire which is upon 

the altar: but his inwards and his 


legs shall he wash in water: and the 

priest shall burn all on the altar, to 

be a burnt-sacrifice, an offering made by 
fire, of a sweet savour unto the LorpD”’ 

(Lev. 1:7-9). 

It is one of the great objects of Leviti- 
cus to teach us to discriminate, to teach 
us how rightly to divide the Word of 
truth (2 Tim. 2:15), and Newton points 
to the minute specifications of verses 7 
and 8 as an illustration. of it. The 
various parts are all carefully distinguish- 
ed from each other before they are laid 
on the altar, bringing before us in the 
type the importance attached in Scrip- 
ture to a knowledge of what Christ really 
was while living and acting on the earth, 
His intelligence, healthfulness and activi- 
ty of thought and feeling. 


Persons and things intended to be 
types of Christ were frequently washed 
also, as in this case, that they might be 
fitter representatives of His essential 
purity. An exception of note as we shall 
see, was the sin-offering (Lev. 4), whose 
inwards were not washed, prefiguring 
our Lord who knew no sin, being smitten 
as if sin for us (2 Cor. 5:21). 

The Hebrew word for “‘burn’’ here 
means ‘‘to burn as incense.’’ A different 
word is used in the case of the sin-offering 
burned “without the camp.’ There 
Christ is seen bearing the devouring 
wrath of God, but here as ‘‘a sweet 
savour unto the Lorp.”’ “A _ sweet 


Pa 


THE BURNT-OFFERING 9 


savour of rest’’ is the way some translate 
it, recalling the margin of Genesis 8:21, 
where in the case of Noah’s offering, 
“the Lorp smelled a savour of rest.” 
‘‘Noah”’ means rest (Gen. 5:29, margin), 
typifying the new creation into which 
Christ will finally bring His redeemed 
people. Compare also Hebrew 4:9 
(R. V.) for the rest into which His 
people are brought even now. 


We thus perceive the special meaning 
of this offering. To the believing Israel- 


\ite it meant that complete consecration 


unto God is essential to right worship, 
inasmuch as the fire consumed the whole 
beyond the offerer’s recall forever. To 
the more thoughtful worshiper, however, 
it must have occurred that it was not him- 
self nor his gift that thus ascended in 
full consecration to God, but a substi- 
tuted one whom God had in mind though 
at that time unrevealed. 


Thus whether understood or not, the 
offering pointed to a Victim of the future 
in whose person and work it should re- 
ceive its full explication. That one, we 
repeat, is our Lord Jesus Christ, who is 
here representing His believing people in 
perfect consecration and _ self-surrender 
to His God and Father. For the New 
Testament application of the offering, 
compare such passages as Luke 2:49; 
John 4:34; Matthew 26:39; Hebrew 
10:5-10, and many others. 


Therefore, as Kellogg says, we are to 
plead not only the atoning death of Christ 
but also the transcendent merit of His 
life. Only we must not argue that as in 
the case of His atoning death. He died 
that we might not die, so He surrendered 
Himself to God in life that we might be 
released from the same surrender. In- 
deed, the exact opposite is the truth as 
we learn from His own words in the pray- 
er offered just before His death, ‘‘For their 
sakes, I sanctify myself, that they also 
might be sanctified through the truth” 
(John 17:19). He procured our salva- 
tion by His death and became our per- 
fect example in His life (Eph. 5:2). 

‘“‘And if his offering be of the flocks, 
namely, of the sheep, or of the goats, 


for a burnt-sacrifice; he shall bring it a 
male without blemish. 

“And he shall kill it on 
the side of the altar 
northward before the 
Lorp; and the priests, 
Aaron’s sons, shall sprinkle his blood 
round about upon the altar. 

“And he shall cut it into his pieces, 
with his head and his fat: and the priest 
shall lay them in order on the wood 
that is on the fire which is upon the 
altar: 

“But he shall wash the inwards and 
the legs with water: and the priest shall 
bring it all, and burn it upon the al- 
tar: it is a burnt-sacrifice, an offering 


made by fire, of a sweet savour unto 
the Lorp”’ (Lev. 1:10-13). 


Note the variation here from a bullock 
(v. 3) to a sheep or goat, and for its reason 
or explanation compare 5:7 with 2 Cor- 
inthians 8:12. In these places we are~ 
taught that poverty was no plea for not 
bringing a burnt-offering. Thus we see 
mercy mingling with justice in this case, 
inasmuch as the lesser offering under the 
circumstances would be equally accep- 
table with the greater one. And so anti- 
typically considered, there ought to be 
in Christian believers sufficient enlarge- 
ment of faith to form a proper concep- 
tion of Christ as our burnt-offering, but 
if this be wanting, even a partial appre- 
hension of faith is not without value. 
Compare the faith of the apostle John 
with that of the Jewish ruler Nicodemus 
as an illustration of this. 


“And if the burnt-sacrifice for his 
offering to the Lorp be of fowls, then 
he shall bring his offering of turtle- 
doves, or of young pigeons. 

‘‘And the priest shall bring it unto 
the altar, and wring off his head, and 
burn it on the altar; and the blood 
thereof shall be wrung out at the side 
of the altar: 

‘‘And he shall pluck away his crop 
with his feathers, and cast it beside 
the altar on the east part, by the place 
of the ashes: 

‘“‘And he shall cleave it with the 
wings thereof, but shall not divide it 
asunder: and the priest shall burn it 
upon the altar, upon the wood that is 
upon the fire: it is a burnt-sacrifice, an 


5. Variations 
in the 
Offerings 


10 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


offering made by fire, of a sweet savour 

unto the Lorp’”’ (Lev. 1:14-17). 

(1) Provision for the poor is still 
further illustrated here, and the anti- 
typical application may be carried further 
also. For example, in the bullock we see 
Christ represented in His service for God 
and man, in the lamb we see Him in 
His unmurmuring submission, in the dove 
we see Him in His mourning innocence. 
Each of these qualities is equally true so 
far as Christ is represented by it, equally 
precious and equally acceptable, but no 
one of them brings out the complete char- 
acter of our perfect offering which it 
requires all three to do. 

(2) Here the offering was killed but 
not divided, doubtless because so small 
a creature did not require it in order to 
its entire consumption. But from the 
anti-typical point of view it illustrates 
the Christian who fails to see in Christ 
all that others see of His daily walk and 
thoughts and feelings. Discriminative 
apprehension is thus almost wholly 
wanting in this offering as it isin the faith 
of many Christians, but yet they are 
accepted in Christ for all that, just as the 
Israelite who brought a fowl to the altar 
was as fully accepted as he who brought 
a lamb or even a bullock. 

(3) In this instance the offerer does not 
kill the victim, which is done by the priest, 
a circumstance which gives occasion to 
bring out another principle of the offer- 
ings not yet mentioned. For example, 
Christ has been spoken of as represented 
by the offering and represented by the 
priest, but as Jukes points out more 
clearly than some others, He is also repre- 
sented by the offerer. Indeed so manifold 
are the relations in which Christ has stood 
for man and fo man, that no one type or 
set of types can adequately represent the 
fulness of them. 

‘In the selfsame type the offerer sets 
forth Christ as the One who became man 
to meet God’s requirements; the offering 
sets Him forth as the victim by which 
the atonement was ratified and the priest 
sets Him forth as the appointed mediator 
and intercessor. Therefore, when we 
have a type in which the offering is most 
prominent, the leading thought is of 


Mediator. 


Christ the victim, while in one in which © 
the offerer or the priest predominates, 
it will be respectively Christ as man or 
Christ as mediator’’ (The Law of the 
Offerings, pp. 36, 37). 

In the present instance, the priest 
does nearly everything, setting before us 
in type the truth that to some believers 
Christ is chiefly known not in His blessed 
person, but chiefly in His office as the 
But nevertheless, the offer- 
ing is still acceptable as a sweet savour 
unto the Lord. 


‘“‘And the Lorn spake unto Moses, say- 
ing, Command Aaron and his sons, say- 
ing, Thisis the law of the burnt-offering: 
It is the burnt-of- 
fering, because of 
the burning upon 
the altar all night 

unto the morning, and the fire of the’ 

altar shall be burning in it. 

‘And the priest shall put on his linen 
garment, and his linen breeches shall 
he put upon his flesh, and take up the 
ashes which the fire hath consumed 
with the burnt-offering on the altar, 
and he shall put them beside the altar. 

‘‘And he shall put off his garments, 
and put on other garments, and car- 
ry forth the ashes without the camp 
unto a clean place. 

“And the fire upon the altar shall be 
burning in it; it shall not be put out; and 
the priest shall burn wood on it every 
morning, and lay the burnt-offering in 
order uponit; and he shall burn thereon 
the fat of the peace-offerings. 

‘‘The fire shall ever be burning upon © 
the altar; it shall never go out’’ (Lev. 
6:8-13). 

(1) Note that this law is addressed not 
to the individual Israelite as such but to 
the priests, Aaron and his sons. 

(2) Note that the design was that the 
fire of the burnt-offering should be con- 
tinually ascending unto God. Compare 
Exodus 29:38-46 where provision is made 
for the offering of a lamb for the whole 
people every morning and evening, 
symbolizing the constant renewal of 
Israel’s consecration unto the Lord. 

(3) Note that the regulations in this, 
case are intended to provide for the unin- - 
terrupted maintenance of this fire; 
i. e., the regular removal of the ashes 


6. The Continual 
Burnt- Offering 


A 
A 
eee 


which otherwise would smother the fire, 
and secondly, the supply of fuel. 

(4) Note that even the removal of the 
ashes is a priestly function as indicated 
in the garments which the priest must 
put on, and which also must be put off 
again when the ashes are removed from 
beside the altar to a place outside tue 
camp; this for the reason that it was for- 
bidden to wear the priestly garments 
except within the tent of meeting. 

(5) Note that during the day when any 
Israelite brought an offering, the fire was 
thus ready to consume it and that the 
smoke thereof continually ascended unto 
the Lord. 


As Kellogg says: ‘The significance of 


this can hardly be missed—signifying to 


Israel and also to us, that the consecra- 
tion which the Lord desires from His 
people is not occasional but continuous.”’ 


Each morning we should put away all : 


that might dull the frame of our devo- 
tion, and each evening before we retire, 
we should by a solemn act of self-dedi- 
cation, give ourselves anew unto the 
Lord. 

Of course, we must not forget that here 
as in the other instances, we are pointed 
to Christ. He is our burnt-offering who 
continually offers Himself to God in our 


THE MEAL-OFFERING 11 


behalf. In a later lesson, we shall see 
that this is not true of the sin offering 
which our Lord presented once for all, 
but as our burnt-offering His full conse- 
cration to God for us never ceases and 
never shall cease. 

Review Questions 

1. By what guide should we interpret 
the Levitical offerings? 

2. How does Leviticus 17:11 prove the 
substitutionary character of the offer- 
ings? 

3. What is the significance of the “‘tent 
of meeting’’? 

4. Why must the Israelite present his ,/ 
own offering? 

5. What is the two-fold significance of” 
the laying on of hands? 

6. What double meaning does the word 
atonement convey? 

7. What did the burnt-offering mean 
to the believing Israelite? 

8. How is mercy mingled with justice 
in this offering? 

9. State how Christ is set forth by the 
offerer, the offering, and the priest. 


10. What is the spiritual significance” 


of the whole burnt-offering? 

11. How many Scripture references are 
found in this lesson, and to how many 
have you carefully referred? 


LESSON III 


The Meal-Offering 
Leviticus 2:1-16; 6:14-23 
E ADOPT in this case the re- 
vised rendering of ‘‘meal’’—in- 
stead of ‘‘meat’’ offering. The 
word in the Hebrew 
1. Interpretations means primarily, a 
present, and so it is 
sometimes translated (Gen. 32:13; Ps. 72: 
10; Isa. 39:1). The fundamentalidea of the 
offering seems to be a gift brought by 
the worshiper to God in recognition of 
His authority and expressing a desire for 
His favor. 

It is noticeable that while in the burnt- 
offering a life was given to God, here it 
was simply the products of the soil. 
There also we have the laying on of 
hands, transferring the obligation of 


death for sin, but here there is no shed- 
ding of blood. In other words, while 
the conception of a gift to God is of course 
dominant in the burnt-offering, yet 
there is not the only thing expressed, 
while here it is. 

The above is Kelloge’s way of looking 
at it, but Newton presents a somewhat 
different idea which has perhaps greater 
merit. In either case, we must re- 
member, the anti-type is Christ. It is 
really He who is being presented to God 
in the meal-offering; but Newton tuinks 
that while in the burnt-offering we see 
Christ in His devotion to God, in the 
meal-offering we see Him in His perfect 
character. Both His devotion and His 
character are set forth in each offering, 
but the one is dominant in the burnt- 


12 


offering and the other in the meal- 
offering. We regret that we have not 
space to enlarge upon Newton’s dis- 
tinction between perfectness of devoted- 
ness as he expresses it, and perfectness 
of character. The first may owe its origin 
to circumstances, but the latter is possible 
only where every inward feeling as well 
as outward action is in habitual con- 
formity with God. Such was the per- 
fectness of character of the Lord Jesus, 
and how it is expressed in the meal- 
offering will be touched upon as we 
proceed. 

Jukes has still another interpretation 
of the meal-offering, going back to man’s 
beginning in Eden where God gave to him 
the fruit of the ground as his portion, 
and reserved life for Himself. It was not 
till after the flood that man was permitted 
to eat flesh, and even then the life, the 
blood, was prohibited to him (Gen. 1:29; 
9:4). Life as an emblem therefore, repre- 
sented what the creature owes to God, 
while the fruit of the earth as an emblem, 
represents what the creature owes to his 
fellow-creature, what man owes to man. 
Thus in the burnt-offering, the surrender 
of life to God represents the fulfilment 
of man’s duty to God, yielding to Him 
the portion that satisfies His claim. And 
in the meal-offering, the gift of the fruit 
of the earth represents the fulfilment 
of man’s duty to his neighbor. In the 
latter offering man is surrendering him- 
self to God of course, but doing so that 
he may give man his portion. The first 
of the two fulfills the first table of the 
law, and the second fulfills the second 
table. Of course, in both cases, the offer- 
ing is but one, viz., Jesus Christ, in one 
case fulfilling for fallen man his duty to 
God and in the other his duty to man. 
Oh, what a wonderful Saviour! 

Finally, before we leave the interpre- 
tation of the meal-offering, let it be noted 
that while its object is not to direct atten- 
tion to the infliction of death on the great 
Substitute but to the character of Him 
who met death, yet as Newton is careful 
to point out, death is nevertheless im- 
plied. Whenever any offering typifying 
Christ either in His character or in His 
work was burned on the altar for a sweet 


CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


savour, as in this case, there is necessarily 
a reference to the cross, and therefore 
to His death. Moreover, the meal- 
offering may virtually be considered only 
as an appendage to the burnt-offering 
which expressed death (Num. 15:3, 4). 
The words ‘‘burnt-offering and his meal- 
offering’’ are of continual occurrence, 
thus showing that they go together, and 
as there was a perpetual burnt-offering so 
also as we shall see, was there a perpetual 
meal-offering. 


‘“‘And when any will offer a meal- 
offering unto the Lorp, his offering 
shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour 

oil upon it, and put frankin- 
2. Nature cense thereon”’ (Lev. 2:1). 
of the 
Offering here, fine flour, oil, frankin- 
cense. The first is one of the 


Three things are mentioned © 


OS pete 


strongest types of meek subduedness that — 


it is possible for nature to supply. There 


is absolutely no unevenness in fine flour. — 


All of Christ’s actions were subordinate 
to the will of His Father, in other words, 
and all were according to the Holy Spirit ; 
everything He said or did was said or 
done in the power of the Spirit. This 
was typically recognized by the offerer 
(though unknown to him as a matter of 
experience) when he poured oil, the em- 
blem of the Spirit, on the fine flour. 

And the frankincense also was typical. 
This gum of snowy whiteness was the 
emblem of purity, a purity which, when 
searched into by the fire, went up in 
grateful fragrance. (Cf. here also Ps. 
141°:2: Luke °1:10; “Rev. 4S<8): 

‘‘And he shall bring it to Aaron’s 
sons the priests: and he shall take 
thereout his handful of the flour there- 

of, and of the oil thereof, 

3. Its with all the frankincense 

Presentation thereof; and the priest 

shall burn the memorial 

of it upon the altar, to be an offering 

made by fire, of a sweet savour unto 
the Lorp: 

“And the remnant of the meal- 
offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons: 
it is a thing most holy of the offerings 
of the Lorp made by fire”’ (Lev. 2:2, 3). 
Note first, that as in the burnt-offer- 

ing, the offerer must bring the offering 
himself, it is his own voluntary act. 


THE MEAL-OFFERING 13 


Secondly, he (or the priest?) takes out 
only a handful of the flour to be burned, 
but the handful represents the conse- 
cration of the whole (Rom. 11:16). 
Thirdly, the priest burns ‘‘the memorial 
of it on the altar.’’ Thus the heavenly 
High Priest must always act on our be- 
half with God. Fourthly, ‘the remnant 
shall be Aaron’s and his sons.” The 
priest thus obtains the larger portion be- 
cause as God’s servant, he needs it for 
his support in the work of God’s house. 
It is the way God took to supply him 
with his daily bread. He could not 
work for it as others did. But just here 
a very assuring and beautiful spiritual 
truth is brought to light, viz., that while 
the meal-offering by its perfectness sat- 
isfies God, it also provides something to 
comfort, feed and strengthen man. That 
is to say, unless the excellency of Christ’s 
character had been presented and ac- 
cepted for us, we would have been without 
hope, but when we know that it has been 
thus presented and accepted, we feed on 
it and give God thanks, 

This is the way Jukes expresses it: 
Christ as performing man’s duty to God 
in the burnt-offering, was wholly the 
food of God, wholly consumed by Him. 
But Christ as performing man’s duty to 
man in the meal-offering, becomes also 
man’s food. The offering in other words 
is offered for us to God, but also given 
to us as the priests of God, for all Christian 
believers are priests. The Gospels are 
full of this aspect of Christ’s work for us, 
since they so constantly show us that 
while His meat was to do the will of Him 
that sent Him, yet in the doing of that 
will He was ever the devoted servant 
of all around Him (Acts 10:38). 

“And if thou bring an oblation of a 
meal-offering baken in the oven, it 
shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour 

mingled with oil, or un- 
4. The Baked leavened wafers anointed 
Variety with oil. 

“And if thy oblation 
be a meal-offering baken in a pan, it 
shall be of fine flour unleavened, 
mingled with oil. Thou shalt part it in 
pieces, and pour oil thereon: it is a 
meal-offering. 

‘And if thy oblation be a meal- 


offering baken in the frying pan, it 
shall be made of fine flour with oil. 

“And thou shalt bring the meal- 
offering that is made of these things 
unto the Lorp: and when it is pre- 
sented unto the priest, he shall bring 
it unto the altar. 

‘‘And the priest shall take from the 
meal-offering a memorial thereof, and 
shall burn it upon the altar: it is an 
offering made by fire, of a sweet savour 
unto the Lorp. 

“And that which is left of the meal- 
offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’: 
it is a thing most holy of the offerings 
of the Lorp made by fire’”’ (Lev. 2:4-10). 
In certain cases the meal-offering might 

be baked in the oven, in a pan (a flat 
plate), or a frying pan. This signifies, 
as did the less costly varieties of the 
burnt-offering, that the poverty of the 
people was considered. The law accom- 
modated itself, so to speak, to the differ- 
ent material resources of the worshipers. 


But as Newton shows, there is such a 
thing as poverty of faith, a more limited 
apprehension of the character of Christ 
on the part of some believers than others. 
This is symbolized in the making of the 
flour into cakes and in the different 
methods employed. 

To illustrate, there were certain prin- 
ciples in the character of Christ which 
made that character what it was in its 
own excellency; and then there were cer- 
tain circumstances in His life, His suffer- 
ings for example, in which that essential 
excellency was developed and made 
manifest to men. The first class of the 
meal-offering, i. e., the fine flour in its 
uncooked state, directs our attention to 
His essential excellency, the other varieties 
to the circumstances of its development. 
‘We may see Jesus as our ‘bread,’ or even 
as God’s bread, without entering into the 
thoughts suggested by the emblem of the 
fine flour and the frankincense. The 
perfect absence of all unevenness, and 
the precious savour of the offering, these 
are not our first views of Jesus, they are 
the most perfect apprehensions, and so 
are they generally the last’’ (Jukes). 

The action of the fire in the cases of 
the oven and the frying-pan, especially 
the latter, presents to the eye a vivid 


14 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


picture of palpable suffering, teaching us 
apparently that where faith is weakest 
or dullest and the scope of apprehension 
most narrowed, then the thought of the 
suffering displayed becomes the most 
prominent or exclusive one (Newton). 
“No meal-offering, which ye shall 
bring unto the Lorn, shall be made 
with leaven: for ye shall burn no 
leaven, nor any honey, in 
5. Leaven, any offering of the Lorp 
Honey made by fire. 
and Salt ‘‘As for the oblation of 
the first-fruits, ye shall offer 
them unto the Lorp: but they shall 
not be burnt on the altar for a sweet 
savour. 
“And every oblation of thy meal- 
offering shalt thou season with salt; 
neither shalt thou suffer the salt of 


the covenant of thy God to be lacking. 


from thy meal-offering: with all thine 
offerings thou shalt offer salt’’ (Lev. 
241-13). 


The symbolism here is familiar. Leav- 
en is a principle of decay, and without a 
single exception in Scripture it symbol- 
izes spiritual corruption (1 Cor. 5:7). 
Honey also tends to promote fermenta- 
tion and decay in that with which it 1s 
mixed. Hence from all our works which 
we present to God, wickedness in every 
form must be eliminated. This includes 
our religious work for, as Kellogg re- 
marks, it is sadly possible to call Christ 
‘“‘Lord,’’ and in His name do many won- 
derful works, which are not really done 
unto Him. (Read here 1 Cor. 10:31). 
How much therefore we need Christ as 
our meal-offering! 

Speaking further of the honey, Paul 
reminds us how the corruptible, honey- 
like sweetness of nature insidiously in- 
fuses itself into the highest development 
of Christian graces, when he says to the 
Philippians, ‘‘I pray that your love may 
abound yet more and more in knowledge 
and in all judgment (i. e. discrimination), 
that ye may approve things that are ex- 
cellent’’ (1:9, 10). Private predilections, 
in other words, must not determine our 
‘ preferences. This is honey if the prefer- 
ence is the result of a natural amiability 
of character that shrinks from giving 
pain. The affection of Christ for His 


mother, for example, was perfect. tle 
was not without affection, but he never 
exercised it apart from God, and like 
every other element of His character, it 
was fit to be presented on the altar. It 
had no ‘“‘honey”’ in it. . 

“‘Salt’’ here is set over in contrast with 
honey. If the latter gives to character — 
an earthly sweetness, the former gives to 
it a heavenly savour (Col. 4:6). Salt is 
the preservation against corruption, the 
emblem of perpetuity. 

We are told that in India and other 
eastern countries the usual word for 
perfidy and breach of faith is, literally, 
“‘unfaithfulness for salt’’; and a man will 
say, ‘‘Can you distrust me? Have I not 
eaten of your salt?’’ (Kellogg). So in 
the meal-offering, as in all offerings made 
by fire, the thought was that Jehovah 
and the Israelite, as it were, partake of 
salt together, in token of the eternal 
permanence of the holy covenant of sal-. 
vation into which the offerer has entered 
with God. 

“And if thou offer a meal-offering 
of thy first-fruits unto the Lorp, thou 
shalt offer for the meal-offering of thy 

first-fruits green ears of 
6. The corn dried by the fire, 
First-Fruits even corn beaten out 
of full ears. ; 

“And thou shalt put oil upon it, 
and lay frankincense thereon: it is a 
meal-offering. 

‘‘And the priest shall burn the me- 
morial of it, part of the beaten corn 
thereof, and part of the oil thereof,’ 
with all the frankincense thereof: it 
is an offering made by fire unto the 
Lorp”’ (Lev. 2:14-16). 

Parched grain as an article of food was 
more or less used by all, as it is still used 
in the East, by even the poorest of the 
people. They might be too poor to own 
so much as an oven or a frying-pan, but 
they could obtain parched grain. 

The green, fresh, tender ear was to be 
dried (parched or roasted) by fire, a 
Hebrew word expressing great intensity 
of suffering when applied to a living per- 
son, (see for example Jer. 29:22). “Full 
ears’’ meant fruit of the earliest and finest 
quality. A clear type in every particu- 
lar of the excellency of Christ, as well as 


s THE PEACE-OFFERING 15 


the intensity of His sufferings on behalf 
of His people. 

Verse 12, which seems to be paren- 
thetic in its location, really belongs to 
this part of the chapter, and raises two 
questions. First, What is the signifi- 
cance of ‘“‘first-fruits’’? And, why should 
it not be burnt on the altar for a sweet 
savour? ‘The answers to these questions 
will have to be postponed until we reach 
a later chapter dealing particularly with 
first-fruits. ‘ 

For the Scripture text in this case, the 
reader is referred to Leviticus 6:14-23. 
It teaches us that as in the law of the 
burnt-offering there 
was not only the offer- 
ings of the individual 
Israelites, but also the 
daily or perpetual 
burnt-offerings of the priests, so it was 
also in the case of the meal-offering. 
Even the amount was prescribed, ‘‘the 
tenth part of an ephah of fine flour, half 
of it in the morning, and half thereof in 
the evening” (v. 19). This apparently 
was the amount regarded as a day’s 
portion of food. 

The daily burnt-offering presented by 
Aaron and his successors typified our 
heavenly High Priest offering His person 
in daily consecration unto God in our 
behalf. And so in the daily meal-offer- 
ing we see Him offering unto God in per- 


7.. The 
Continual 
Meali-Offering 


fect consecration day by day, perpetu- 
ally, all His works for our acceptance. 

To the Christian believer often op- 
pressed with the imperfection of his own 
consecration of his daily works, often 
oppressed because his heavenly Father 
is not glorified by him as He should be 
glorified, how exceedingly comforting is 
this view of Christ! That which even 
at our very best we do so imperfectly and 
interruptedly, He does for us perfectly 
and with never failing constancy. Thus 
He perfectly glorifies the Father and 
through the boundless merit of His con- 
secration, He constantly procures for us 
daily grace unto life eternal (Kellogg). 


Review Questions 


1. What is the fundamental idea of 
the meal-offering? 

2. Can you state the three different 
interpretations of it given by Kellogg, 
Newton and Jukes? 

3. Which do you regard as the most 
satisfactory? 

4, What is meant by “poverty of 
faith’’ and how is it symbolized in the 
varieties of this offering? 

5. How would you apply to Christian 
character the absence of honey from 
this offering? 

6. What does the presence of the salt 
signify? 

7. What does the daily meal-offering 
typify as to Christ’s work for us? 


LESSON IV 


The Peace-Offering, Leviticus 3:1- 
17; 7:11-34 


HE main object of this offering, 

distinguishing it from the two 

preceding, is that of a sacrifice 

ending in a sacrificial meal. This 
meal expresses the idea of peace and fel- 
lowship with God secured by the blood 
atonement. 


“‘And if his oblation be a sacrifice of 
peace- -offering, if he offer it of the herd; 
whether it be a male or female, he 


shall offer it without blemish before the 


Lorp. 

ne Deas “And he shall lay his hand 
Offering Upon the head of the offering 
and kill it at the door of the 
tabernacle of the congregation: and 
Aaron’s sons the priests shall sprinkle 
the blood upon the altar round about. 
‘And he shall offer of the sacrifice of 
the peace-offering an offering made 
by fire unto the Lorp; the fat that 
covereth the inwards, and all the fat 

that is upon the inwards, 


“And the two kidneys, and the fat 


16 


that is on them, which is by the flanks, 

and the caul above the Jiver, with the 

eas it shall he take away” (Lev. 

The first differentiating feature is that 
a female victim as well as a male was per- 
mitted, carrying out the idea of the vari- 
ous grades in the offerings, as previously 
illustrated. Another reason why a fe- 
male was permitted here was because 
unlike the burnt-offering, the whole of 
the victim was not burned on the altar 
in consecration to God. Quoting Kel- 
logg: ‘‘The idea of representation and 
expiation had a place in the peace-offer- 
ing as in all bloody offerings, but here it 
was subordinate to the chief intent of the 
offering, which was to represent the vic- 
tim as food given by God to Israel in the 
sacrificial meal. Thus we have a hint 
that the dominant thought in the peace- 
offering is not so much that of Christ as 
the holy Victim, our representative, but 
that of Christ, the Lamb of God, as the 
food of the soul through partaking of 
which we have fellowship with God.’’ 

In this offering that which was burned 
on the altar was only ‘‘the fat that cov- 
ereth the inwards,” ‘‘the two kidneys,”’ 
and ‘‘the caul’’ (vv. 3, 4), the best and 
the richest parts. Quoting Newton: 
‘‘No types could be chosen more strongly 
expressive of inward being. They are 
often mentioned in Scripture under the 
general expression ‘reins and heart,’ and 
as portraying Christ, our Substitute, 
they show Him as the one inwardly as 
well as outwardly perfect.” 

Where the victim was of the flock 
rather than the herd, to ‘‘the fat thereof”’ 
was added ‘‘the whole rump’”’ or rather 
“the fat tail entire’ (v. 9, R. V.). The 
reference is to a special eastern breed of 
sheep, whose tail grows to an immense 
size and consists almost entirely of a rich 
substance between fat and marrow. For 
the spiritual application of the fat parts 
of the victim, compare Psalm 36:8; Isaiah 
25:6; ‘Romans 11:7. 

The third chapter concludes with a 
prohibition against the eating of either 
fat or blood. The reason for the pro- 
hibition of the blood was pointed out in 
the law of the burnt-offering. And the 


CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


reason for the prohibition of the fat is 
similar, namely, its appropriation for 
God upon the altar. Thus the Israelite 
as often as he partook of his daily food 
was reminded of two things: (1) that the 
only ground of his acceptance before God 
was that of atonement by the blood, and 
(2) that God’s claim on the man redeemed 
by the blood was a claim for the conse- 
cration of his best. 


Kellogg reminds us that nothing is of 
more importance in the present day than 
to keep in mind the principles underly- 
ing these regulations. Many professed 
preachers of the gospel now refuse to 
recognize the place which propitiatory 
blood holds in that gospel. And on the 


other hand, many easy-going Christians | 


Tie ie 


seem satisfied to give the lean to God and | 


keep the fat, the best fruit of their life 
and activity for themselves (Heb. 10:26- 
31). 

Referring again to the law, it appears 
that this prohibition of the eating of fat 
referred only to the fat of such beasts as 
were used for sacrifice. With these, 
however, the law was absolute, whether 
the animal was presented for sacrifice or 
only slain for food. It held good with re- 
gard to these animals even when, be- 
cause of the manner of their death, they 
could not be used for sacrifice. In such 
cases, though the fat might be used for 
other purposes, still it must not be used 
for food (Kellogg). 

‘‘And this is the law of the sacrifice 
of peace-offerings, which he shall offer 
unto the Lorp. 

“Tf he offer it for a thanks- 


2. Kinds giving, then he shall offer 
of with the sacrifice of thanks- 
Offerings giving unleavened cakes 


mingled with oil, and un- 
leavened wafers anointed with oil, and 
cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour, 
fried. 

‘Besides the cakes, he shall offer for 
his offering leavened bread with the 
sacrifice of thanksgiving of his peace- 
offerings. 

‘And of it he shall offer one out of the 
whole oblation for an heave-offering 
unto the Lorp, and it shall be the 
priest’s that sprinkleth the blood of the 
peace-offerings. 


Rove s.0 


THE PEACE-OFFERING 17 


‘‘And the flesh of the sacrifice of his 
peace-offerings for thanksgiving shall 
be eaten the same day that it is offered; 
he shall not leave any of it until the 
morning. 

“But if the sacrifice of his offering 
be a vow, or a voluntary offering, it 
shall be eaten the same day that he 
offereth his sacrifice: and on the mor- 
row also the remainder of it shall be 
eaten: 

“But the remainder of the flesh of 
the sacrifice on the third day shall be 
burnt with fire. 

“‘And if any of the flesh of the sac- 
rifice of his peace-offerings be eaten 
at all on the third day, it shall not be 
accepted, neither shall it be imputed 
unto him that offereth it: it shall be 
an abomination, and the soul that 
eateth of it shall bear his iniquity’’ 
(Lev. 7:11-18). 


Here we perceive (1) that peace- 
/offerings might be of three kinds, a 
“sacrifice of thanksgiving,’ a ‘‘vow”’ ora 
“free-will offering.’”’ The first was of- 
fered in gratitude for mercies received 
(Ps. 116:16, 17); the second also for 
mercies received, but where the offer- 
ing had been promised in advance upon 
that condition; the third was merely a 
spontaneous expression of the offerer’s 
love to God and his desire to live in fel- 
lowship with Him. 

(2) With the peace-offering a meal- 
offering of three kinds of unleavened cakes 
was to be offered (cf. Num. 15:2-4). 
Besides these ‘‘leavened bread”’ also was 
permitted (v. 13), but this was not to be 
placed upon the altar as for God, but to 
be eaten before God by the offerer, his 
family and friends. Of each of these 
cakes, leavened and unleavened, one was 
to be presented as a ‘“‘heave-offering to 
the Lord, and it shall be the priests.”’ 
“‘Heave-offering’’ is so called from its 
being heaved or lifted up on high, ‘‘in 
token that it was thereby directed to the 
God of heaven and devoutly proffered 
to His acceptance’’ (Bush). 

(3) If the peace-offering were a sac- 
rifice of thanksgiving, the flesh of the 
offering must be eaten the same day. 
If it were a vow or a free-will offering a 
part might remain until the second day, 


but the remainder if any, must be burnt 
with fire on the third day. 

Doubtless the reason for this was that 
there might be no possible beginning of 
decay, a thought which reminds us that 
it was written of the Antitype, ‘‘Thou 
wilt not suffer thy Holy One to see cor- 
ruption’”’ (Ps. 16:10). Furthermore, the 
extreme limit of time allowed reminds us 
also that it was precisely on the third day 
that Christ arose from the dead in the 
incorruptible life of the resurrection so 
that He might forever continue to be the 
Living Bread of His people (Kellogg). 

This is a good place to pause and en- 
large upon the main object of the peace- 
offering as distinguishing it from the 
burnt and the meal-offerings. In the 
burnt-offering the burning ended the 
ceremonial, but in the peace-offering, 
after the burning of the part which be- 
longed to God, there followed the cul- 
minating act in the eating of the sac- 
rifice by the offerer and his household. 

At Home With God 

The chapter before us gives no direc- 
tions as to how this sacrificial eating 
should be done, but these are found in 
Deuteronomy 12:6, 7; 17, 18. The eat- 
ing was to take place not at the offerer’s 
home but before the Lord at the tent of 
meeting. This was to show that the 
feast was not given by the worshiper to 
God, but given by God to the worshiper 
and partaken of in His house. In the 
first instance indeed, the offerer had 
brought and given the victim to God in 
expiation of his sin. But God, after re- 
ceiving the offering, indicates what use 
is to be made of it. A part is burnt on 
the altar, God’s portion; a part is given 
to the priests as their appointed susten- 
ance from God’s table whom they served, 
and a part is to feast the worshiper him- 
self, 

‘“‘Profoundly suggestive and instruc- 
tive is the contrast between the heathen 
custom in this offering and the Levitical 
ordinance,’’ says Kellogg. For the cus- 
tom was widely spread among heathen 
peoples to observe a sacrificial feast 
where a victim was first offered to a deity 
and then its flesh eaten by the offerer 





18 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


and his friends. But in the case of the 
heathen feasts it was men who feasted 
the god, while here it is God who feasts 
man. The idea of the natural man has 
always been, ‘‘I will be religious and 
make God my friend by doing something 
for Him or giving something to Him.’’ 
But God teaches us the reverse. We 
become truly religious by first of all tak- 
ing what He has provided for us. Inthe 
peace-offering in other words, where 
antitypically we have presented the Lamb 
of God as our peace, and the Priest has 
sprinkled for us the precious blood, not 
only is our sin pardoned, but in token 
of friendship thus restored, God invites 
the penitent believer to sit down at His 
table in joyful fellowship with Himself. 
The prodigal has returned and the Father 
is giving him the best He has. 

Nor is this all. What is ‘‘the best He 
has’ which the Father thus gives the 
prodigal? It is the same Victim whose 
blood was shed and sprinkled in atone- 
ment for his sin! The sacrifice of the 
altar and the food of the table are one 
and the same. He who offered Himself 
for our sins on Calvary is now yiven to 
the believer as his spiritual sustenance. 
Does the imagery seem strange and un- 
natural? ‘‘So,’’ says Dr. Kellogg, ‘‘did 
it seem to the Jews in Christ’s day, who 
wonderingly inquired: ‘How can this 
man give us his flesh to eat?’ (John 
G52) 

How the light begins now to flash back 
from the gospel to the Levitical law, and 
from this again back to the gospel! 

‘‘And the flesh that toucheth any 
unclean thing shall not be eaten; it 
shall be burnt with fire: and as for the 

flesh, all that be clean shall 
3. The One eat thereof. 
Condition “But the soul that eateth 
of the flesh of the sacrifice 
of peace-offerings, that pertain unto 
the Lorn, having his uncleanness upon 
him, even that soul shall be cut off 
from his people. 

‘‘Moreover the soul that shall touch 
any unclean thing, as the uncleanness 
of man, or any unclean beast, or any 
abominable unclean thing, and eat of 
the flesh of the sacrifice of peace- 
offerings, which pertain unto the Lorn, 


even that soul shall be cut off from 

his people’’ (Lev. 7:19-21). 

This teaches us that there was one 
condition without which the Israelite 
could not have communion with God in- 
the peace-offering. He must be clean,’ 
that is to say, there must be in him noth-. 
ing which should interrupt fellowship 
with God. So also must the peace-offer- 
ing itself be clean. There must be 
nothing in the type to make it an unfit 
symbol of the Antitype. Thus by the 
spirit of these commands are we like- 
wise warned not to presume upon God's 
grace in providing a Lamb for us by liv- 
ing carelessly. To use and enjoy Christ 
as our peace-offering, we must keep our- 
selves ‘‘unspotted from the world” 
(James 1:27) and hate “even the gar- 
ment spotted by the flesh’’ (Jude 23). 
Compare also 1 Peter 1:15, 16. ) 


Nothing can be more important for 
the right comfort of our hearts than to ~ 
meditate well on the relation of God to 
us as expressed in this offering. Being 
therefore justified by faith, let us have 
peace with God through our Lord Jesus 
Christ (Rom. ‘531, R.). V.ji 3baeeoeee 
words, being at peace with God, let us 
enjoy the peace which He has thus pro- 
vided, let us feed on the peace sacrifice. 
The offerer seated at the table spread 
by the grace of God, is a type of the con- 
dition of every believer in Christ, how- 
ever feeble he may be in apprehending 
the blessings that are his. Whenever 
the great day of eternity breaks, he will 
be recognized as one who is in fellowship 
with God at the table of peace sacrifice. 
The sin of our nature, that which of all 
things is most depressing and terrifying 
to an awakened heart, is met forever by 
this grace. Our sorrow thus. is turned 
into joy and the cry of helpless despair 
exchanged for the voice of thanksgiving. - 
The Lord hath done great things for us; 
whereof we are glad (Ps. 126:3). He 
hath given us the garment of praise for 
the spirit of heaviness (Isa. 61:3) (Kel- 
logg). 

Review Questions 

1. What is the main object of the 

peace-offering? 


Sa —— Ss _ 
peer 
yo) ia - a 


C THE SIN-OFFERING~ . 19 


2. What is its dominant thought? 

3. What is the significance of the 
“fat’’ being burned oa the altar? 

4, Of what two things was the Israel- 
ite reminded as he partook of his daily 
food? 

5. How many kinds of peace-offer- 
ings might there be? 

6. Define the ‘‘heave-offering.”’ 


7. Describe the contrast between the 
heathen custom in this offering and the 
Levitical ordinance. 

8. What was the absolute condition 
for communion with God in the peace- 
offering? 

9. What great truth in the Epistle 
to the Romans does this offering illum- 
inate? 


LESSON V 


The Sin-Offering 

Leviticus 4:1-35; 5:1-13 

BSERVE that the law of the 

sin-offering is introduced  dif- 

ferently from any of the pre- 

ceding offerings. In their cases 
the phraseology is thus: “If any man 
of you bring an offering unto the Lorpb”’ 
(1:2); ‘‘When any one will offer a meal- 


offering’? (2:1); ‘If his oblation be a 
sacrifice of peace-offering’’ (3:1). But 
in this case, “If a soul shall sin : 
then let him bring for a sin- 


offering” (4:2, 3). 

In the first three the language im- 
plies, so Kellogg and others think, 
that the Israelites were familiar with 
the offering before its incorporation 
into the Levitical system, while the 
sin-offering is introduced as a new thing. 

This. agrees with facts. Each of the 
other offerings had been known and 
used by other nations, as well as by 
the patriarchs before 
Moses’ time, but noth- 
ing -had been heard 
of a sin-offering. The 
significance of this 
is that now in Israel the spiritual train- 
ing of mankind “entered on a new 
stadium.’ The race is now to have 
developed within it a sense of sin and 
guilt it had never before experienced. 
The sin and guilt were there, but they 
had been inadequately known and 
felt. In this offering therefore, the 
idea of expiation by blood shedding 


1. The Reason 
for the 
Sin-Offering 


is almost the only thought represented. 
Moreover in the order prescribed for 
the different sacrifices, the sin-offering 
was always the first in cases where the 
others also were offered. In the others, 
Israel was taught that fellowship with 
God depends upon atonement for sin, 
but here that is the dominant thought. 


As Jukes expresses it, the sweet- 
savor offerings (burnt, meal, peace) 
were for acceptance, this for expiation. 
In those the faithful Israelite was seen 
satisfying Jehovah, here his offering 
is altogether charged with his sin. 
In the sin-offering as in the burnt- 
offering, Christ is the offerer as repre- 
senting the Israelite, but here He does 
so as the one under the imputation of 
sin. Here He is taking up His people’s 
sins as His own, and saying, ‘‘My sins, 
O God, are not hid from thee”’ (Ps. 69: 
5); “Innumerable evils have compassed 
me about; mine iniquities have taken 
hold upon me” (Ps. 40:12). Here He 
is “being made a curse for us’ (Gal. 
3:13). Oh, wondrous mystery of grace! 


It might be well at this point to add 
a further thought from Jukes, as to 
the reason why the sin-offering was 
unknown before this time. He obtains 
his idea from the word ‘‘command- 
ments’”’ (v 2). 

As Paul says in Romans 7:9, “I was 
alive without the law once, but when 
the commandment came, sin revived 
and I died.’’ Israel had no law till 
Sinai. Burnt-offerings and meal-offerings 


20 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


were offered by the patriarchs, but the 
law convicted men of sin and made 
necessary the sin-offering. Or to put 
it better, ‘‘the law entered that sin 
might abound’’ (Rom. 5:20). That is 
to say, the law was not given either 
to make or to prove men holy, but 
rather to prove us to ourselves to be 
what God has known us to be ever since 
the fall, i. e., sinners in His sight. 


‘‘And the Lorp spake unto Moses, 
saying, 

“Speak unto the children of Israel, 

saying, If a soul shall 

2. Graded sin through ignorance 

Responsibility against any of the 

commandments of the 

LorD concerning things which ought 

not to be done, and shall do against 
any of them: 

“Tf the priest that is anointed do 
sin according to the sin of the people; 
then let him bring for his sin, which 
he hath sinned, a young bullock 
without blemish unto the Lorp for 
a sin-offering. 

“And he shall bring the bullock 
unto the door of the tabernacle of 
the congregation before the Lorp; 
and shall lay his hand upon the 
bullock’s head, and kill the bullock 
before the Lorn” (Lev. 4:1-4). 


(1) Note that the sins for which this 
sacrifice was appointed were those of 
ignorance, showing the absolute equity 
of God. He is just, but He takes notice 
of any palliating circumstance. (Cf. 
Matt. 26:41; Luke 12:48; Heb. 5:2). 


But the necessity of this offering shows 
that palliation of sin does not nullify it. 
It must be atoned for. This bears on the 
responsibility of the heathen, whose 
ignorance where it is not wilful and 
avoidable diminishes their guilt, but does 
not cancel it. 


But some one may say, the Israelite 
was obliged to bring his sin-offering only 
when he came to a knowledge of his sin! 
Yes, but that does not mean that his sin 
was passed over, as we shall see when we 
come to the law of the Day of Atonement 
(Lev. 16). Once every year a sin-offering 
was presented by the high priest for all 
the sins of Israel not atoned for in the 


sin-offerings of every day (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4, 
Re Va 


There is a prevailing feeling in human 
hearts that sins of ignorance are not sins. 
To act conscientiously, they think, 
is the same as to act blamelessly. It is 
for this reason that some do not desire to 
know more than they do. Light is dis- 
quieting and convicting. 

But the heinousness of sins of ignorance 
is in the condition of heart which is 
capable of committing sin without know- 
ing that it is sin. No one can ever doubt 
this after seriously pondering the signifi- 
cance of the sin-offering. 

(2) Note the graded responsibility of 
sin in the application of the law to the 
priest who must bring ‘‘a*young bullock’”’ 
for his offering (4:3). »This was the most 
valuable of all the varieties or grades of 
the offering, being the same indeed as 
must be offered “if the whole congrega- 
tion of Israel sin’”’ (4:13,:14). A ruler 
might bring a he-goat (4:23), and “‘one of 
the common people’”’ might bring a female 
goat (4:28), or if unable to do that, 
“two turtle doves or two young pigeons’”’ 
(5:7) or other substitutes (5:11). 


As Kellogg says, ‘‘No one can well miss 
the meaning of this. The guilt of sin is 
proportioned to the rank and station of 
the offender (cf. James 3:1; and also Rev. 
2 and 3 where ‘the angel of the church’ 
in every case is held responsible for the 
spiritual state of those committed to © 
his charge).’’ The greater our privileges, — 
the nearer we are brought to God; the 
more intimately we are connected with 
Him in service, the more terrible must 


be the consequences of transgression.— 
B. W. Newton. 


(3) Note that according to this God 
holds nations, communities and ail asso- 
ciations of men under obligation in their 
corporate capacity to keep His laws, and 
will not count them guiltless if they vio- 
late them even through ignorance. 
There is a universal tendency in Christen- 
dom to repudiate such responsibility, 
and what it shall mean one of these days 
is revealed in Scripture with startling 
clearness in the warning concerning the — 


THE SIN-OFFERING 21 


Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:3-8; 1 John 2:18; 
REV Loti). 


(4) Note that the !aw concerning the 
common people is expanded more fully 
than any other part of it, reminding us 
that none is so lowly in station as to 
have his sins overlooked. There is no 
respect of persons with God. 

“And the priest that is anointed 
shall take of the bullock’s blood, 
and bring it to the tabernacle of 

the congregation: 
3. The “And the priest shall dip 
Ritual his finger in the blood, and 
sprinkle of the blood seven 
times before the Lorp, before the 
vail of the sanctuary. 

“And the priest shall put some 

of the blood upon the horns of the 
altar of sweet incense before the 
Lorp, which is in the tabernacle 
of the congregation; and shall pour 
all the blood of the bullock at the 
bottom of the altar of the burnt- 
offering, which is at the door of the 
tabernacle of the congregation’’( Lev. 
4:5-7). 
Here we have the ritual of the sin- 
offering. It differs in some respects from 
that of the other offerings, but the varia- 
tions have all one intent. They fasten 
the mind of the offerer on the thought of 
expiating sin through the substitution 
of an innocent life for the guilty. 

(1) In the other offerings where the 
idea of expiation had a secondary place, 
the blood of the victim, by whomsoever 
brought, might be applied to the sides of 
the altar only, i. e., the altar in the outer 
court commonly spoken of as the altar 
of burnt-offering. But here in the case 
of the priest, it must be sprinkled seven 
times before the Lord before the vail of 
the sanctuary, also upon the horns of the 
altar of incense before the Lord in the 
Tabernacle and “all the blood of the 
bullock shall he pour out at the bottom 
of the altar of burnt-offering.’’ This 
must be done as well where the offering 
was for ‘‘the whole congregation,”’ i. e., 
the nation (4:13-18). 

When a ruler sinned it would be suff- 
cient to sprinkle the blood on the horns 
of the altar of burnt-offering, and pour 
out the blood at the bottom of the altar 


, 


a 


(4:25). The same in the case of one of the 
common people (4:30), except when the 
latter was too poor to bring more than 
two doves or two pigeons, in which cir- 
cumstance the blood was to be sprinkled 
only upon the side of the altar and the 
rest ‘“‘wrung out at the bottom” (5:7-9). 


(2) In these distinctions we see the 
blood brought ever nearer and nearer 
into the presence of God. The horns 
of the altar were more sacred than the 
sides; the altar before the vail was more 
sacred than that in the outer court; 
while the Most Holy Place was within the 
vail where the ark stood covered with 
the mercy seat. Here the blood was 
sprinkled once a year on the great Day 
of Atonement (Lev. 16). 

Why these distinctions? A ruler or 
one of the common people had access 
only to the outer court, hence there the 
blood must be exhibited for the sin which 
defiled it. The priest ministered in the 
holy place, and for the same reason the 
blood must be exhibited there when he 
sinned. And the same principle held 
when the sin atoned for was that of the 
whole nation, for the priest represented 
the nation, and Israel in its corporate 
unity was a ‘“‘kingdom of priests.”’ 

The last remark applies to Christian 
believers who are a “royal priesthood’’ 
(1 Pet. 2:9). Hence how much more evil 
a thing it is for Christians to sin in com- 
parison with other people! 

(3) The blood must be presented not 
before the offerer, not before the priest, 
but before the Lord (cf. Ps. 51:4). 

Some are teaching today that the need 
of the atonement is found only in man 
and not at all in God. God could have 
pardoned sin without it, they say. Why 
then, was it called for? Their answer 
would be that man’s heart was hard and 
rebellious and distrusted the divine love. 
Therefore, some stupendous exhibition 
of that love was necessary to disarm 
man’s enmity and win him back. 

If that were all that was intended by 
the atonement, why then this constant 
insistence as to where the blood should 
be presented? This does not minimize 
the love of God when we remember that 


22 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


He appointed the sacrifice and that He 
Himself in the person of His Son accom- 
plished it. 

But if the shedding of blood were so 
essential in the putting away of sin, 
why, it may be asked, was there one case 
in which an exception might be made 
es BOs 

The exception here was that of an 
extremely poor Israelite, and had it not 
been made there would have remained 
that class of persons in Israel whom God 
had excluded from the provision of the 
sin-offering, and yet He had made that 
offering the inseparable condition of for- 
giveness. As Kellogg puts it, here was a 
case very evidently in which something 
must be sacrificed in. the symbolism 
since both of these truths could not be 
set forth with equal perfectness. 

And yet even in this case, the pre- 
scriptions were such as to prevent any 
confounding of the sin-offering with the 
meal-offering which typified consecrated 
and accepted service. For example, the 
oil and the frankincense were both to be 
left out. Also, while the meal-offering 
had no limit as to the quantity to be used 
here, the amount is particularly pre- 
scribed ‘‘the tenth part of an ephah,’’ 
representing the sustenance of one full 
day. Thus the support of life for one 
day was given up as forfeited by sin. 

Here again we quote Jukes on the 
import of hese varied symbols, who re- 
marks that in the sin-offering as in the 
burnt-offering they show us the different 
characters under which the offering of 
Christ may be apprehended by men. 
One saint has one view and another 
another. In the preceding offerings 
there was found an indistinctness in 
what was called the lower views of the 
offering—a mixing up of one aspect with 
another. And so it is here, until the 
thought of the sin-offering is seen to be 
very little different fron) that of the meal- 
offering. But though of ‘flour’ it is 
still designated a ‘“‘sin-offering.”’ 

How exactly this peculiarity in the 
type describes the way in which some 
apprehend our blessed Lord! Some see 
the pain and sorrow He had in service, 


the grinding and scorching of the meal- 
offering and they think this was His sin- 
bearing, being unable to distinguish be- 
tween the trials of service and the curse 
of sin itseif. 


Jukes carries the thought forward to 
the matter of the blood-sprinkling on the 
different altars, which is unintelligible to 
those who have never considered the 
typical import of the relative parts of the © 
Tabernacle. An atonement has been 
made for sin, this much people see, and 
it is enough for them and they are thank- 
ful, and go no further. 

The same spirit, says Jukes, which 
makes the fool say, ‘‘There is no God,” 
tempts even some Christians to say, 
“there is nought in much that Christ 
wrought for us.’’ 


‘“‘And he shall take off from it 
all the fat of the bullock for the sin-- 
offering; the fat that covereth the 


inwards, and all the fat 
4. The that is upon the ‘inwards, 
Burning ‘“‘And the two kidneys, and 


the fat that is upon them, 
which is by the flanks, and the caul 
above the liver, with the kidneys, 
it shall he take away, 

‘‘As it was taken off from the bul- 
lock of the sacrifice of peace-offerings: 
and the priest shall burn them upon 
the altar of the burnt-offering. 

‘‘And the skin of the bulleck, and 
all his flesh, with his head, and with 
his legs, and his inwards, and his 
dung, 

“Even the whole bullock shall he 
carry forth without the camp unto 
a clean place, where the ashes are 
poured out, and burn him on the 
wood with fire: where the ashes are 
Sra out shall he be burnt’”’ (Lev. 
4:8-12). 


As in the peace-offering, so in this case 
all is not burnt upon the altar but only 
the choicest part, and for the same 
reason as in the other case. The peculiar 
variation in the offering of the two young 
pigeons (5:7-10) is explained in the 
nature of the victims. The fat of a dove 
would be so small in quantity and so 
difficult to separate with thoroughness 
that a second bird must be taken for 


eat 
./.- 


‘- 
~~ 


sf THE SIN-OFFERING 23 


burning as a substitute for the fat of 
larger animals. What the burning of 
the fat meant in the other offerings, the 
burning of the second bird meant in this 
offering. 

(1) Note that because of the solemn 
relation into which the expiatory victim 
had been brought to God, the offerer was 
not permitted to eat of its flesh for it was 
‘“‘most holy.’”’ The priest might eat a 
portion (6:26) as contributing to his own 
maintenance (1 Cor. 9:13), but even he 
was prohibited from doing so when he 
himself was the offerer, either as an 
individual or as included in the congre- 
gation. 


(2) Note that the flesh must be burnt 


‘not upon the altar but ‘without the 


camp.’ Not only, as some think, to 
distinguish it from the burnt-offering 
whose symbolic meaning was so different, 
but because in one sense it was ‘‘unholy.’’ 
That is to say, the offering was so identi- 
fied with the sin for which it was offered, 
that it was looked upon as sin, and as 
such cast out into the wilderness. The 
‘fat’? was burned on the altar to show 
that the offering though made a sin- 


bearer, was itself perfect, but the body 


of the victim was cast forth. Compare 
here Hebrews 13:12, which shows Jesus, 
the only spotless offering this world ever 
witnessed, not only afflicted of man, but 
judged of God and smitten. And why? 
For the answer read Isaiah 53:10; 
veGorinthians 5:21, and. 1. Peter 2:24. 


In the Epistle to the Hebrews our 
attention is called to the fact that this 
part of the ritual prefigured Christ and 
the circumstances of His death very 
particularly (Heb. 13:10-12). As Dean 
Alford interprets this passage in Hebrews, 
it means that Jesus suffered outside the 
camp of legal Judaism and thus fulfilled 
the type of the sin-offering. In other 
words, His consecration of Himself to 
God found supreme expression in that 
He voluntarily submitted to be despised 
and rejected of men, even of the Israel of 
God. In the light of these marvelous 
correspondences between the type and 
the antitype, what a profound meaning 
more and more appears in those words of 


Christ concerning Moses, ‘‘He wrote of 
me’’ (Kellogg). 


It remains to add that notwithstanding 
the inclusiveness of the cases for which 
the sin-offering was provided, there still 
remained some sins for which no offering 
was available. In other parts of the 
Pentateuch, the Israelites were taught 
that no satisfaction should be taken for 
the life of a murderer, or a blasphemer, 
or an adulterer. This was intended 
not only to emphasize the aggravated 
wickedness of such crimes, but also to 
develop in Israel the sense of need for a 
more adequate provision, a better sacri- 
fice, as the Epistle to the Hebrews re- 
veals (Heb. 8). 


Review Questions 
1. What difference do you observe in 
the introduction of the law of the sin- 
offering? 
2. What is implied in this difference? 
3. What is Jukes’ explanation that this 
offering was unknown before? 


4, Why was the law of Sinai given to 
men? 

5. How is God’s equity illustrated in 
the sin-offering? 

6. Does ignorance cancel guilt? 


7. What shows that guilt is propor- 
tioned to knowledge and responsibility? 


8. What shows that God is no respect- 
er of persons? 


9. What deep significance attaches to 
the fact that the blood must be sprinkled 
before Jehovah? 


10. Express Jukes’ idea of the import 
of the varieties in the symbols. 


11. Apply Jukes’ idea of the varieties to 
the Christian’s apprehension of Christ. 


12. Why was the victim here burned 
‘without the camp’’? 

13. Did the sin-offering avail for all 
acts of sin absolutely? 

14. What was emphasized by its limi- 
tations? 

15. More than twenty passages of 
Scripture are referred to in this lesson 
outside of the lesson text itself; how: 
many of them have you examined? 


24 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


LESSON VI 


The Trespass-Offering 
Leviticus 5:14-19; 6:1-7 
N ITS broad principle the trespass- 
offering is closely allied to the sin- 
offering and yet it differs from it in 
some particulars. The sin-offering 
represents sim in our nature, while the 
trespass-offering represents the frutts of 
sin in our nature. In the first no par- 
ticular act of sin is named, but the person 
who has sinned is seen confessing him- 
self as a sinner; while in the second the 
acts are enumerated and the person who 
committed them is rather in the back- 
ground. The word ‘trespass’? always 
has reference to an invasion of the 
rights of others in respect of property 
or service. 

Andrew Jukes who brings out the dis- 
tinction between the 
sin and the trespass- 
offerings very clearly, 
expresses the convic- 
tion that many persons 
see the spiritual truth of the trespass- 
offering who have very imperfect ideas of 
Christ as the sin-offering. Nor is he 
thinking of unconverted people either 
when he says this, to whom, of course, 
acts of trespass are the only things dis- 
cernible. But he is thinking of young 
Christians, who have much less percep- 
tion of sin than of trespass. They speak 
of having done this evil or that, but 
seldom think of themselves as being evil. 
Not so the man who has grown in grace, 
who is sorry not so much for what he 
does as for what he ts (Rom. 7:14-24). 
To such a man, what a joy to learn that 
Christ has died for what he is as well 
as for what he does! 

“And the Lord spake unto Moses, 
saying, If a soul commit a trespass, 


1. Compared 
with the 
Sin- Offering 


and sin through ignorance, in the 
holy things of the 
2. No Variety Lorp; then he shall 


or bring for his trespass 

Gradation unto the Lorp a ram 

without blemish out of 

the flocks, with thy estimation by 

shekels of silver, after the shekel of the 
sanctuary, for a trespass-offering. 


And he shall make amends for the 
harm that he hath done in the holy 
thing, and shall add the fifth part 
thereto, and give it unto the priest: 
and the priest shall make an atonement 
for him with the ram of the trespass- 
offering, and it shall be forgiven him” 
(Lev. 5:14-16). 

The law of the trespass-offering really 
begins here, although the word ‘“‘tres- 
pass” is found in the preceding part of 
the chapter (vv. 6, 7). The King James 
Version is in error there however, as the 
Revised Version points out. See also 
verse 12 where it is clear that the sin- 
offering is still in mind. 


(1) Note that one may commit even 
a trespass through “‘ignorance,’’ showing 
as Jukes says, how little man’s judgment 
can be trusted respecting not only what 
he is but what he does (cf. Ps. 119:9, 11). 

(2) Note that the trespass here 
spoken of is in “the holy things of the 
Lorp.’’ What things? Read Malachi 
1:6-14 for an answer in part. (Also see 
Josh. 7:1; 2 Chron. 28:22-25)293PhGse 
who live nearest to God will confess 
that which to others may seem incredible, 
that often there has been unwitting 
trespass in the holiest acts of work and 
worship. As Jukes says, there is no act 
of praise, or prayer, or any kind of min- 
istry which may not, through Satan’s 
cunning, prove an occasion to the flesh. 

(3) Note that the trespasser must 
bring ‘‘a ram out of the flocks’ as an 
offering in every case. Unlike the sin- 
offering for example, there is no variation 
either on account of the rank or the 
ability of the offender. The obligation 
of plenary satisfaction and reparation 
for the trespass committed could not be 
modified in any way. The man who 
has defrauded his neighbor, whether of a 
small or a large amount, abides as his 
debtor before God under allsconditions 
until restitution is made. 

The ram was a valuable offering as 
compared with a dove or pigeon or even 
a ewe or a lamb, but it was not a bullock, 
which might be quite out of the reach 
of many a poor man. The idea of value 


: THE TRESPASS-OFFERING 23 


must be represented, and yet not so 
represented as to exclude a large part 
of the people from the provisions of the 
trespass-offering. 

Furthermore, the value must be ac- 
cording to God’s standard, not man’s. 
It must not fall below two shekels, and 
the shekel must be that of the sanctuary 
(Kellogg). 

(4) Note that in the trespass-offering 
something additional is required to the 
sacrificial ram. The life must be laid 
down, but the value of the trespass must 
be paid to the injured party also. For 
the victim merely to die for trespass 
would leave the injured party still a 
loser, the death would not repair the 
trespass nor restore the rights of which 
another had been robbed. Yet till this 
was done perfect atonement or satis- 
faction could not be rendered. 

‘May one be pardon’d and retain 
the offense? 

In the corrupted currents of this world 

Offence’s gilded hand may shove by 
justice, 

And oft ’tis seen the wicked prize 
itself 

Buys out the law; but ’tis 
above.” 

—The King of Denmark, in Hamlet. 

Therefore, a “fifth part’’ more than 
the cost of trespass must be added in the 
indemnity. Jukes traces the idea asso- 
ciated with the ‘‘fifth 
part’’ back to the 
days of Joseph and 
the famine in Egypt 
(Gen. 47:13-26), where 
we cannot follow him just now. But 
we may say that the “fifth part’ is a 
witness not only that the sum or the 
object yielded up has been so yielded 
up as a debt, and not as a free gift, but 
that the whole of that of which the fifth 
was paid, was the right and the property 
of the one to whom it was thus rendered. 
Moreover, the guilty person is not 
allowed to gain even a temporary advan- 
tage from the use of that which he has 
now restored. “The fifth part more’’ 
would quite over-balance it. 

Wonderful, indeed, are the ways of 
God! How exact is His justice, and 


not so 


3. Significance 
of the 
“Fifth Part’’ 


how perfectly adapted was the trespass- 
offering to educate the conscience of 
both the rich and poor! 

“And if a soul sin, and commit any 
of these things which are forbidden to 
be done by the commandments of the 
Lorp; though he wist it not, yet is he 
guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. 

And he shall bring a ram without 
blemish out of the flock, with thy esti- 
mation, for a trespass-offering, unto 
the priest: and the priest shall make 
an atonement for him concerning his 
ignorance wherein he erred and wist 
it not, and it shall be forgiven him. 

It is a trespass-offering: he hath cer- 
tainly trespassed against the Lorp”’ 
(Lev. 5:17-19). 


In the former section the law provided 
for cases in which, though the trespass 
had been done unwittingly, yet the 
offender afterward came to know of it in 
its precise extent, so as to give exact 
basis for the restitution ordered in such 
cases. 


But here he was in complete ignorance 
of it. He was aware ofa trespass, in 
other words, but did not know just how 
much it was. A fifth part could not be 
applied in such a case, yet none the less 
he must bear his iniquity, the ram must 
be offered. The reference is still, doubt- 
less, to a trespass ‘‘in the holy things 
of the Lorp.’’ If it had been a trespass 
against a neighbor, the exact cost might 
more readily have been ascertained. 

‘‘And the Lorp spake unto Moses, 
saying, If a soul sin, and commit a tres- 
pass against the Lorp, and lie unto his 

neighbor in that which 


4. What was delivered him to 
Constitutes keep, or in fellow- 
Trespass ship, or in a thing 


taken away by vio- 
lence, or hath deceived his neighbor; 

Or have found that which was lost, 
and lieth concerning it, and sweareth 
falsely; in any of all these that a man 
doeth, sinning therein; 

Then it shall be, because he hath 
sinned, and is guilty, that he shall 
restore that which he took violently 
away, or the thing which he hath 
deceitfully gotten, or that which was 
delivered him to keep, or the lost thing 
which he found. 


26 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


Or all that about which he hath 
sworn falsely: he shall even restore it 
in the principal, and shall add the 
fifth part more thereto, and give it 
unto him to whom it appertaineth, in 
the day of his trespass-offering. 

And he shall bring his trespass- 
offering unto the Lorp, a ram without 
blemish out of the flock, with thy 
estimation, for a trespass-offering unto 
the priest: 

And the priest shall make an atone- 
ment for him before the Lorp: and it 
shall be forgiven him for any thing of 
all that he hath done in trespassing 
therein’”’ (Lev. 6:1-7). 


These verses are quoted not because 
they present serious difficulties, but 
because they offer an opportunity for 
some very practical teaching in spiritual 
things. They recite some of the things 
which constitute trespass against one’s 
neighbor, but for which the same offer- 
ing must be presented and the same 
restitution made. 


What are the things? (1) Dealing 
falsely with a neighbor in a matter of 
deposit (R. V.). 
ed to a man and he sold it or used it 
unlawfully as if it were his own. (2) Deal- 
ing falsely in a’ bargain (R. V.). A man 
sold some goods or a piece of land and 
represented them to be better than they 
were, or asked a larger price than they 
were worth. (3) Robbery, ‘“‘a_ thing 
taken away by violence,’’ even perhaps 
under color of legal forms as we might 
now say. (4) Oppression, taking ad- 
vantage of a neighbor’s.circumstances to 
extort from him to his disadvantage. 
(5) Finding and keeping a lost article 
belonging to some one else. 


In all these cases the prescription is 
the same as in analogous offenses in 
the holy things of Jehovah. First, the 
guilty man must confess the wrong 
which he has done (Num. 5:5-7), then 
restitution must be made of that of 
which he has defrauded his neighbor, 
and then one-fifth additional. But while 
this may set him right with man, it does 
not yet set him right with God; hence 
the trespass-offering completes the law. 


Of course, like all the others, the 
trespass-offering pointed to Christ who 


Something was entrust- | 


is ‘‘the end of the law unto righteousness’’ 

(Rom. 10:4). As our 
5. Pointing burnt-offering He became 
to Christ our righteousness in full 

self-surrender; as our 
peace-offering He became our life in 
fellowship with God; as our sin-offering 
He became the expiation for our sins, 
and as our trespass-offering He made 
satisfaction and full reparation on our~ 
behalf to the God on whose rights in 
us we had trespassed by our sins without 
measure. See Isaiah 53:10 where the 
Hebrew word for ‘‘an offering for sin’’, 
is the same which through all this Levit- 
ical law is rendered trespass, or ‘‘guilt’’ 
offering. In the New Testament also, 
as the correlate of the trespass-offering 
we find sin frequently set forth as a 
debt owed from man to God (Matt. 6: 
12; 18:23-35; Luke 7:41, 42). 

Kellogg reminds us that this repre- 
sentation of Christ’s work has in all 
ages been ‘‘the offense of the Cross,’’ 
for which reason there is all the more 
need for us to insist that Christ is our 
trespass-offering, whose death affects our 
salvation not merely through its moral 
influence but by its expiation and repara- 
tion. This truth is ever to be set forth 
against all Modernisnt, Liberalism or 
Unitarian theology in any other name. 


Review Questions 

1. In what fundamental way does the 
trespass-offering differ from the © 
sin-offering? 

2. What is involved in the meaning of 
the word ‘‘trespass’’? 

3. In which of the two offerings is the 
spiritual truth more easily dis- 
cerned? . 

4. What are meant by the holy things 
of the Lord? 

5. Why was something additional re- 
quired to the sacrificial ram? 

6. Name some of the things constituting 
trespass against one’s neighbor. 

7. To whom does the trespass-offering 
point? 

8. State the different ways in which 
Christ is our substitute, as repre- 
sented by the different offerings. 

9. Is sin ever spoken of in the Bible as 
a debt to God? If so, where? 


sight” (Col. 1:22). 


‘THE OFFERINGS AS A WHOLE 


bo 
~“ 


LESSON VII 


The Offerings as a Whole* 


HE essential thing which consti- 
tutes a Christian is union with 
Christ. Not a visionary or a 
changeful thing is this union, but 
a reality wrought in and for the true 
believer by the Holy Spirit. Every 
reader of the New Testament is familiar 


with the phrase so frequently employed 


by the apostle Paul, ‘‘in Christ Jesus,” 
meoree cis. Gal. 1322; Boh. 3; 
Thess. 4:16). This phrase expresses the 
union, and it is illustrated for us by such 
figures as the vine and the branches 
(John 15:1-8), the bridegroom and the 
bride (John 3:29; Rev. 9:1; Eph. 5:30-32), 
and especially the human body (Rom. 
Macey out Gor. 12:12-14; Eph. 1:22, 23). 

These figures we ourselves could never 
have conceived of or have dared to 
appropriate, but they have been given 
to us by God’s grace in His holy Word, 
and they are sealed in our hearts as 
true by the Holy Spirit. Indeed, so 
entirely one is the believer with Christ, 
that in God’s mind and purpose he died 
when Christ died and rose again when 
He arose (Rom. 6:3-11; Col. 2:12; 3:1-4; 
1 John 4:17). 

II 


Now this fact establishes what it has 
become accustomed to call our standing 
or position before God in Christ. That 
is to say, Christ as our substitute has 
met all the claims of God upon us as 


‘sinners in His sight and violators of His 


law. He has reconciled us to God. In 
Him we are now presented “holy and 
unblameable and unreproveable in His 
The Head of the 


body being holy, all the members are 


holy, the Head being without blame and 
without rebuke, all the members of the 


b body are, in the Head, without blame 


and without rebuke. The recognition of 
this judicial fact, or rather the faith of 
it, gives peace (Rom. 5:1, 2). 

But the believer’s union with Christ 


*A bridged with a few changes from The Law of the 
Offerings. by Andrew Jukes, First American Edition. 


os Sidi) aaa od 


not only affects his standing or position 
before God, but also what the apostle 
Paul calls our walk; i. e., our character 
and conduct (Eph. 4:1, 17; 5:2, 8, 15). 


Of course, our walk, or conduct, is 
constantly very far short of that which 
it ought to be. It was so with Paul 
himself, who wrote to the Philippians 
that he had not ‘‘already attained,’’ but 
that he followed after, if that he might 
apprehend that for which also he was 
apprehended of Christ Jesus (3:12). 


Our walk is a matter of experience, 
the measure of our spiritual life or power, 
and that depends upon the measure in 
which we truly apprehend our standing 
or position in Christ, and endeavor to 
live up to the standard which it implies. 
That standard is the walk of Christ 
Himself. ‘He that saith he abideth in 
Him, ought himself also to walk even 
as He walked’’ (1 John 2:6), and it is 
the work of the Holy Spirit to verify in 
the members of Christ’s body that which 
is already true for them as well as of 
them in their Head. It all depends on 
how far their own will would have it so 
by yielding themselves to the operation 
of the Holy Spirit. 

This shows us, therefore, that what is 
true of Christ as our Head cannot be 
looked at alone in its connection with 
our standing. If we are Christ’s, then 
what is true of Him as our Head must 
necessarily take us further. It must lead 
us to know what should be the measure 
of our walk, it must teach us what is 
unbecoming to our calling, what is con- 
trary to our life in Him, and it must 
urge us on to be conformed to Him in 
all things. 

Here is where Christians seem very 
seriously to differ, some seeing one part 
of the truth but incapable apparently of 
seeing both parts. Some press that 
which bears upon our standing and some 
that which bears upon our walk, whereas 
both are to be pressed as it were, alike. 
And where they are not pressed alike, 
there is always some kind of spiritual 


28 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


deformity and weakness. Those who 
see the standard for our walk in Christ, 
but do not see our place, our position 
before God in Him, may try to appre- 
hend, they may try to attain unto the 
walk, but there will be an awful absence 
of that joy and strength which come 
only from the knowledge of our position. 
And because of the absence of that joy 
and strength, there will be on their part 
an ever lowering of the standard of their 
walk, and a seeking only of so much of 
the fruit of the Spirit as will prove them 
to be Christians and no more. 

On the other hand, they who see their 
standing or position in Christ, but who do 
not see that this implies a daily dying with 
Him, and a daily rising again, are suscepti- 
ble, alas! to very serious temptation on the 
other side, to continue in sin, as it were, 
that grace may abound (Rom. 6:1). This is 
to speak of union with Christ in name, 
but to deny it in fact. 

it 

Now to connect this with the offer- 
ings. These set forth Christ. We see 
in them how man in Christ has made 
atonement. In the sin and trespass- 
offerings the sin of man has been fully 
borne, and in the burnt and meal-offer- 
ings all God’s requirements are satisfied. 
Christ has been ‘‘without the camp”’ for 
us and has been laid upon the altar for 
us. ‘By one offering He hath perfected 
forever them that are sanctified’’ (Heb. 
10:14). This is our standing, or position, 
as believers in Him. 

But now comes the other aspect of 
the truth. His offering, as our example, 
sets before us the model and the standard 
for our self-sacrifice. His sacrifice, as 
we saw in our previous lessons, had 
varied aspects, as satisfying God, as 
satisfying man, and as bearing sin, and 
so must our self-sacrifice, though in a 
lower sense, so far as it is conformed to 
His, have the same aspects. Not as 
though, by our self-sacrifice we could 
make Christ’s offering for us more 
acceptable, certainly not, but as the 
consequence of our acceptance in Him 
and as the fruit of our union with Him 
through the Holy Spirit (Phil. 3:10). 


It was wholly burnt, teaching us the 
obligation of entire self-surrender. ‘‘Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all 
thine heart.’’ We 
cannot do this 
without its cost- 
ing us something. 

But not only was the burnt-offering 
wholly burnt, but consider the nature of 
the offering itself. The bullock, the lamb, 
the turtle-dove, each brought out typic- © 
ally some distinct particular in the char- 
acter of sour blessed Lord, setting us a 
particular example, however far we may 
be from attaining it. In them we see 
patient service, unmurmuring submis- 
sion, gentleness and innocency of life. 
In other words, self-sacrifice in Christ, 
and for Christ, will not make us heroes 
in the world. Service, submission, meek- 
ness gain no earthly crowns. 

Here, as man for men, Christ offered 
Himself as man’s meat. He gave Himself 
to God with special reference to man and 
as meeting man’s 
claim on Him. That 
is to say, man hasa 
claim upon his fel- 
low-man, one which God ratified in the 
second table of the law, saying: ‘“‘Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” 

It was in the meal-offering that Christ 
met and satisfied this claim, by giving 
Himself to God as man’s portion. How 
far therefore, in the light of His sacrifice, 
may we do the same, i. e., yield ourselves 
to God as man’s meat? 

In reply, consider the nature or char- 
acter of the meal-offering, the bruised 
corn, the oil, the salt, the frankincense. 
Consider also that as in the case of the 
burnt-offering, the whole of it was con- 
sumed. Then let us ask, has man ever 
complied with this, or has he ever been 
conformed to this pattern? 

In Acts 4:32-35, we find something 
approaching it in the history of the 
apostolic church. As Jukes says, in that 
day men were living who for the gospel’s 
sake had “‘lost all things,’’ and yet were 
willing to suffer more, even to give their 
own lives to God for others. Compare 
also Paulin Philippians 2:17 and Phoebe, 


1. Take the Burnt- 
Offering 


2. Take the Meal 
Offering 


‘THE OFFERINGS AS A WHOLE 29 


Romans 16:1, 2. The opportunity and 
the need for this self-sacrifice on behalf 
of our fellow-man still continue, and just 
in the measure that the disciple is like 
his Master, will he ‘‘do good unto all 
men, especially unto them who are of 
the household of faith’? (Gal. 6:10). 
“Hereby perceive we the love of God, 
because He laid down His life for us; 
and we ought to lay down our lives for 
the brethren”’ (1 John 3:16). 


In this we saw that God was fed, the 
priest was fed and the offerer also. They 
all were represented as seated at one 

table in God’s house. 
3. Take the In what sense is God 
Peace-Offering fed by our offerings, it 

may be asked? In 
what sense is He satisfied by them? 
Romans 12:1; 2 Corinthians 9:7; Philip- 
pians 4:18 and Hebrews 13:16 answer 
that question. The works of the flesh 
are indeed dead works, useless, and 
worse than useless. They cannot be 
acceptable to God. But in our zeal 
against salvation by works, let us be 
careful to discriminate. There is such a 
thing as ‘‘the fruit of the spirit’’ to be 
produced in us, and this witnesses of 
His grace and is an offering to His 
praise. 


The priest who was fed by the peace- 
offering represented Christ Himself, and 
poor as our offerings are, Christ finds 
joy in them. “I was an hungered, and 
ye gave me meat, I was thirsty and ye 
gave me drink’”’ (Matt. 25:35). As Jukes 
says, if we only realized His gladness in 
some work or labor of love, forgotten it 
may be by the feeble doer, but treasured 
in the book of life, we could not have 
the narrow, selfish, grudging hearts that 
many of us have. 


And the peace-offering fed the offerer 
himself. Strangers to self-sacrifice have 
we been, if we need to be told the joy it 
imparts to him who sacrifices. ‘Yea, 
and if I be offered upon the sacrifice and 
service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice 
with you all’? (Phil. 2:17). See also 
Col. 1:24. “It is more blessed to give 
than to receive’’ (Acts 20:35). 


IV 


Thus far only the sweet-savour offer- 
ings have been considered in their appli- 
cation to the Christian’s walk, but what 
about the sin-offering? If it applies, of 
course it can be only in a secondary way, 
for a saint cannot atone for himself. 
But may it apply in a secondary way? 
Jukes thinks that it may, using 1 Peter 
3:18 and 4:1 in illustrating the point. 


The first of the above passages shows 
us Christ as once suffering for sin, ‘‘the 
just for the unjust, that He might bring 
us to God,” while the second says: ‘‘For- 
asmuch then, as Christ hath suffered for 
us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise 
with the same mind; for he that hath 
suffered in the flesh hath ceased from 
sin.”’ 

In other words, the saint, knowing 
that for him Christ has borne the Cross, 
follows on by that Cross to judge and 
put to death all that he finds in himself 
still contrary to his Lord. That is to 
say, instead of making Christ’s Cross 
the reprieve for that which is still in him 
of the old nature, he will use that Cross 
to slay it, he will not plead it as an ex- 
cuse for carnal and careless walking. 
See Romans 6:6; 1 Corinthians 11:31; 
Galatians 6:14; Philippians 3:19. 


How full of teaching is the sin-offer- 
ing, viewed even in this lower light, 
merely as an example to us! 


But the trespass-offering, what of 
that? In this, restitution was made for 
the wrong; the original claim with an 
added ‘‘fifth’’ was paid by the trespasser. 
This was fulfilled for us in Christ, at 
whose hands God received all of that of 
which man had robbed Him. He made 
a full atonement for us. 

But now how should this offering affect 
our walk, our character, and conduct? 

Of course, we can make no restitution 
to God in the sense in which Christ made 
it. If all the rest of our lives were wholly 
spent for God, it were only our duty in 
the premises, and could not atone for 
the omissions and transgressions of the 
past. Each day would bring its own 
proper claim. 


30 CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS 


And yet, there is a sense, as Jukes 
points out, in which the saint in fellow- 
ship with Christ will make restitution, 
a sense in which as a Christian he will 
act in grace toward others, a sense in 
which he will add the ‘‘fifth.’”?” He will 
fulfill Christ’s command, ‘‘Do good to 
them that hate you, and pray for them 
that despitefully use you and persecute 
you” (Matt. 5:38, 44). Cf. also Mark 
11:25, 26 and Luke 6:32-35. 


REVIEW QUESTIONS 


1. What is the essential thing consti- 
tuting a Christian? 

2. How is it illustrated in Scripture? 

3. What does it establish in the Chris- 
tian’s relationship to God? 


. What else does it affect? 
. What is the Christian’s standard of 


character? 


. How or by whom is this effected in 


the Christian? 
How do Christians seem to differ on 
this point? 


. What does the burnt-offering teach 


us as to our ‘‘walk’”’ in Christ? 
The meal-offering? 
The peace-offering? 


. The sin-offering? 
. The trespass-offering? 
. How many New Testament scrip- 


tures are quoted or referred to in 
this lesson? 


. How many have you personally ex- 


amined? 


Burnt-Offerings - - 


‘ 


eulavah AY O28 


Continual Burnt-Offering /- -° - 10 
Continual Meal-Offering - - - - 15 


First-Fruits | Peay kes - - - - 14 


Honey - eae cl sila mien Baath Jr 


Leaven Beh SAID ye Ph 
Leviticus, Book of - - - 


Meal-Offering en eRe ead oe VET by, 28 


Offerings as a Whole fT aa Ae Aiton 
Origin and Authority - - - - - 3 


Peace-Offering ' - 


Salita one 
Sin-Offering 


Trespass-Offering, - + - +--+) - 24, 29 


s 





By Dr. JAMES M. GRAY 


THE CHRISTIAN WORKERS COMMENTARY on the Old and New Testa- 
ments. A better single-volume commentary on the whole Bible, by chapters, 
for Suntan needs of inquiring Christians, cannot be had. 8vo, cloth, 
net UY. 


SYNTHETIC BIBLE STUDIES (Enlarged, revised, completed). Affords a 
mastery of Bible by books. Most excellent as a Whole Bible Course lesson 
help. 8vo, cloth, met $2.25. 


PRIMERS OF THE FAITH. How we know that the Bible is Genuine, Credible, 
and Divine. 16mo, cloth, net $1.25. 


A TEXT BOOK ON PROPHECY. Written that every Christian may know and 
understand “‘what shall be hereafter.”” 12mo, cloth, net $1.25. 


PROPHECY AND THE LORD’S RETURN. The What, When, Why, and How 
of Christ’s second coming. 12mo, cloth, net 75¢. 


HOW TO MASTER THE ENGLISH BIBLE. An inspiration to adopt the only 
method that leads to power. 18mo, cloth, net 50c. 


THE ANTIDOTE TO CHRISTIAN SCIENCE. Rom. VI, Gal. V, Eph. I, 
Col. III, 2 Thess. II, Heb. VI and 1 John IV are the "basis of ‘this most 
effective treatise. 12mo, cloth, net 75c. 


SPIRITISM AND THE FALLEN ANGELS. Man’s experience with the powers 
of darkness in all ages and God’s Word dealing with it comprehensively set 
forth. 12me, cloth, $1.25 net. 


PROGRESS IN THE LIFE TO COME. What God has revealed respecting 
ee righteous dead from Abel to the millennium and after. 12mo, boards, net 
C. 


A PICTURE OF THE RESURRECTION. Gives full value to the fifteenth 
chapter of First Corinthians. 12mo, boards, net 50c. 


BIBLE PROBLEMS EXPLAINED. Important questions of wide range 
scripturally clarified. 16mo, paper, 30c; cloth, net 75c. 


SATAN AND THE SAINT. Satan’s systematic efforts to deceive exposed, and 
aon will paves before and when Christ comes again. 16mo, paper, 30c; 
cloth, net /5c. 


GREAT EPOCHS OF SACRED HISTORY. The frst twelve chapters of Gene- 
sis expounded, with present-day relationships. 16mo, paper, 30c; cloth, net 75c. 


SALVATION FROM START TO FINISH. How lost sinners become glorified 
ae set pore in eight evangelistic Bible expositions. 16mo, paper, 30c; 
cleth, net ee 


ONENESS WITH CHRIST. An exposition of Colossians, by W. R. Nicholson, 
edited by Dr. Gray. 12mo, cloth, net $1.25. 


“CHRIST IN THE SACRIFICIAL OFFERINGS. peable Studies in Leviticus. 


8vo, art stock covers, net (35c. 


THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE BELIEVER. A help to the right understand- 
ing of the relation of the Holy Spirit to the believer, and a call to receive the 
deeper work of the Spirit in the heart. 16 pp., 4c; doz., 40c; 100, $2.00. 


THE ERRORS OF “MILLENNIAL DAWNISM”. A valuable booklet with 
which to meet the fallacies of the pernicious teaching of “‘Russellism.’’ 24 pp., 
each 5c; doz., 50c; 100, $3.00. 


‘rHE FUTURE RETRIBUTION OF THE WICKED. As shown in the story of 
the Rich Man and Lazarus. 16 pp., each, 3c; doz., 30c; 100, $2.00. 


mca enieta: ANSWERS CONAN DOYLE. 8 pp., each, 5c; doz., 50c; 
100, 75, 


WHY WE BELIEVE IN THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST. 14 pp., 7c 
each; doz., 75c; 100, $5.50. 


THE OUTPOSTS OF THE CITADEL OR WHY I BELIEVE THE BIBLE 
WILL STAND. 14 pp., 7c each; doz., 75c; 100, $5.50. 


Tue Bistz InstiruteE CoLeorTace Ass’N 
826 North La Salle Street Chicago, Illinois 








Syracuse, N. Y. 
Stockton, Calif. 


, 5 
vem 
1% 
Lay 





iil 


1 1012 00035 2544 


| 


| 


G77 


8 


| 


Princeton Theological Seminar 


| 


4) 
no 
c 
% 
¥ 
ye 
o 
s 
= 
= 
as. 
vo 
ba) 
“nn 
wv 
<= 
» 
c 
~ 
2) 
= 
<= 
oO 


BS1255 





